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.
This is one of the best posts I've seen summarizing the dysfunction of Cincinnati:
Quote:
Unfortunately, the clannish, provincial mindset is almost cast in stone around here, and it's certainly one of the primary factors holding this city back.
- The east side doesn't care about the west side, much less ever visits;
- The west side loathes the east side and mocks its lifestyle;
- There are entire cities within cities (St. Bernard, Norwood) that don't want any part of what surrounds them;
- The suburbs have no use for the city and love to bask in its failures;
- The city distrusts the suburbs and thinks they should all disappear;
- The city rarely cooperates with the county, and vice versa
- Municipalities poach corporations from their neighbors with little regard to any regional impact;
- And good luck getting anyone in Ohio, Kentucky or Indiana to give two hoots about what's going on across their borders.
Throw in decades of segregation, above average nepotism, incompetent leadership and disconnected national representation more interested in advancing their own careers than fighting for their constituents and Greater Cincinnati is the very definition of regional dysfunction. Hence, here we are today, actually considering slapping a decade-long transit ban on ourselves.
The biggest thing that irks me btw is the whole East side/West side thing, where people on the east side feel no reason to go to even a nice neighborhood on the west side. If there is a house that is a good deal in Wyoming they will flat out refuse it for a place in Madeira. Its not like there is a huge difference in distance between Wyoming and most job centers versus Maderia either...
Getting back to the subject at hand....
Quote:
Embedding rails in our streets is just an act of religiousity. The religion of the "hip." There is no logical or scientific argument that supports embedded rails other than the argument that once the rails are installed, they can't be moved and so development is assured along the rails. Note that that does not say that development is increased. No. It just says that it is fixed along a particular route.
Oh so you want Cincinnati to maintain the status quo of being lame? A place that has so much potential, but makes young people want to leave it? A place that has a hard time attracting talent, so that fortune 500 companies that are the bedrock of the local economy see a good reason to leave, if they can't attract young educated workers, then will they have a future? Will Cincinnati have a future. The answer to all of these questions is no! Cincinnati should get with the times and its the mentality your describing in your paragraph that's holding the city back.
Quote:
Note that that does not say that development is increased. No. It just says that it is fixed along a particular route.
Even if its along a particular route, said route goes right through the heart of OTR. A good Over-The-Rhine is good for the city as a whole. Its a UNIQUE asset that can sell the whole city to people. There will be ripple effects from a proper redevelopment of that abandoned neighborhood that in other cities would be viewed as a critical asset. Because Cincinnati doesn't live in reality its where the crap slides down the hill, lets ignore this place that could pump millions of dollars into the local economy in tourism and restoration work. Why? Because that's the way its been and that's the way it should be!
This is one of the best posts I've seen summarizing the dysfunction of Cincinnati
^ Like to second this, neilworms 2! Both of abr7rmj's recent posts here (11/3, #22 & #27) ought to be required reading for anyone who wants topical, succinct summaries of what holds our "should/would/could be great city" in continual check. Most certainly, on both a national and international scale, there are other major factors (CVG and lack of bilingualism, to name but a few)--however what holds us so down within was laid out clearly here. Required reading, all!
(P.S.) I've tried to "rep" abr7rmj so many time in the last months, I'm blocked--so just "kudos" to him on these latest posts!
. . . . A place that has a hard time attracting talent, so that fortune 500 companies that are the bedrock of the local economy see a good reason to leave, if they can't attract young educated workers, then will they have a future?
Like most of the rest of your posts, this would make a lot of sense if the predicate for it was true. But, since it isn't true, your post makes no sense.
First, Fortune 500 Companies are not attracted to a City because it has a little streetcar. While corporate managers are usually pretty shallow people, they are not insane. They choose a city because of the availability of entry level workers (higher level workers move wherever the company locates even if it is in Timbuktu), the state and local tax rates, availability of raw materials, freight transportation and travel costs and efficiency, and visibility among their business partners. Years ago that last consideration caused many regional companies to flock to NYC, Chicago. No longer. Recently, companies moved away from centers of rail transport like NYC. Should we conclude that these companies are averse to rail and want to get away from it? No, it is just that rail is irrelevant to company re-locations. They moved from NYC because of tax rates. Traffic congestion could be a factor, but rail is hip, not effective in reducing traffic. So take that theory about the streetcar attracting the Fortune 500 and peddle it elsewhere. No serious person believes that. It is a college boy's fantasy that corporate managers all want to move to Portland or equivalent.
Like most of the rest of your posts, this would make a lot of sense if the predicate for it was true. But, since it isn't true, your post makes no sense.
First, Fortune 500 Companies are not attracted to a City because it has a little streetcar. While corporate managers are usually pretty shallow people, they are not insane. They choose a city because of the availability of entry level workers ... Years ago that last consideration caused many regional companies to flock to NYC, Chicago. No longer. Recently, companies moved away from centers of rail transport like NYC {see my link below}. Should we conclude that these companies are averse to rail and want to get away from it? No, it is just that rail is irrelevant to company re-locations. They moved from NYC because of tax rates. Traffic congestion could be a factor, but rail is hip, not effective in reducing traffic. So take that theory about the streetcar attracting the Fortune 500 and peddle it elsewhere. No serious person believes that. It is a college boy's fantasy that corporate managers all want to move to Portland or equivalent.
Lets take a look at a few things that I've highlighted:
Emphasis added to availability of entry level workers. Which in this case is highly educated young workers as most of these Fortune 500 companies are primary looking for this class of worker out of college as they are mostly in the service industries or their more industrial sides are overseas. Also said workers are far more scarce than unskilled workers one could hire for a factory job.
NYC versus Stamford, CT, where a lot of financial firms moved to, which I'm pretty sure is what your implying by the quote - though urban parts of Jersey could also apply. Here is a realistic example of what's going on, UBS moved to the burbs but now is having a hard time attracting young workers out to Stamford who prefer to live in NYC, thus they are starting to move back. Its not the only reason why they are moving necessarily but it is a factor as mentioned by these sources...
From WSJ:
Quote:
The firm reportedly has had difficulty recruiting top-tier talent willing to take the roughly one-hour train ride to Connecticut.
It turns out that a suburban location has become a liability in recruiting the best and brightest young bankers, who want to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn, not in Stamford, Conn., which is about 35 miles northeast of Midtown. The firm has also discovered that it would be better to be closer to major clients in the city.---
---“They just can’t hire the bankers and traders they need,” said one landlord who has spoken with UBS but requested anonymity so as not to alienate a potential tenant.
Putting these two ideas together and combining it with the "hipness of the streetcar" - 1) Companies want young talented people 2) Young talented people these days tend to prefer urban environments 3) A streetcar will help make the urban environment more attractive to young workers thus:
A streetcar will help increase the availability of entry level workers in the city as it will help make the city a more attractive place to live and work. Granted its not just the streetcar by itself that makes a city attractive for this, but it helps.
Bringing it back to Cincinnati, an executive at P&G said the following:
Quote:
Lydia Jacobs-Horton, director of Procter & Gamble Co.’s Global Facilities and Real Estate Organization, said downtown improvements, including a streetcar system, casino and upgraded parks on the Cincinnati Riverfront and Over-the-Rhine, will have a direct bearing on P&G’s ability to attract talent.
So as a result, this is a factor in making Cincinnati more attractive to young educated workers. Are other things like CVG flight convenience important, yes, but it totally is a factor and an important one in business decisions. The streetcar is oil to the gears of making the city a more vibrant hipper place to attract young workers who could spend there twenties in a more "fun" city.
Last edited by neilworms2; 11-04-2011 at 09:56 AM..
Traffic congestion could be a factor, but rail is hip, not effective in reducing traffic.
Are you really trying to say that New York City would not be in complete chaos if it didn't have the subway and commuter train network?
Over 4 million people use the subway in New York every day. So if New York got rid of the subway, traffic wouldn't substantially increase? Yeah, that makes sense.
Embedding rails in our streets is just an act of religiousity. The religion of the "hip." There is no logical or scientific argument that supports embedded rails other than the argument that once the rails are installed, they can't be moved and so development is assured along the rails. Note that that does not say that development is increased. No. It just says that it is fixed along a particular route.
I'd like to hear from those of you who have used public or motorized transportation for a trip starting and finishing among these destinations:
Government Square
Fountain Square
Contemporary Arts Center
Public Library
Aronoff Center
Horseshoe Casino
Gateway Quarter
School for the Creative and Performing Arts
Music Hall
Washington Park
Since it can be walked in 10 minutes, I doubt there is one person who has done this. I mean, why would a person need to.
And, how many unionized public sector workers do we get to add to the bloated City payroll to staff this white elephant again? Who will be the Director of Streetcar, the Maintenance Supervisor, and the Coordinator and Liaison Officer with Metro. And, since every trip will cost about $50 per person per trip, it will serve as a a very expensive express shuttle for the panhandling bums to get from Ghettoville (Findlay Market Area) to the center of downtown without wearing out their shoes.
I'm sure you're aware, Wilson, that the original plan was to connect The Banks to the university/hospital/zoo district uptown. That plan was scuttled due to the "foresight" of our fantastically popular sitting governor. Because of the yanked funding - which went to pay for road projects in Canton and a well-to-do Columbus suburb - the initial route was significantly downsized. But you have to start somewhere, right? Uptown will obviously be part of a route extension in subsequent years. How will your 10-minute walk argument look then?
Care to walk from UC to downtown and back? Or perhaps a nice little lunchtime jaunt with the family from the Hyatt to the zoo?
Also, if you've been paying even a little bit of attention to what's going on in those other "hip" cities, as you deride them, you'd know that significant economic development almost immediately follows a streetcar's implementation. Thus, your questionable putdowns of "Ghettoville" are moot, because the area wouldn't remain that way. Bottom line: streetcar goes in, neighborhood instantly improves. Ghettoville moves along.
And perhaps that's a lot of the opposition to the steetcar: Haters know full well that the system will work as advertised and they aren't comfortable with the fact that the undesirable element will be forced out and may move closer to them. Keep 'em locked where they are, huh?
Incidentally, I know plenty of people who wouldn't be physically capable of walking from Fountain Square to Findlay Market. Not everyone is as blessed as you with the ability to do that walk in 10 minutes (laughable), carrying bags of groceries, no less.
Incidentally, I know plenty of people who wouldn't be physically capable of walking from Fountain Square to Findlay Market. Not everyone is as blessed as you with the ability to do that walk in the 10 minutes (laughable), carrying bags of groceries, no less.
It is hard for those people holding a 40 in one hand and a blunt in the other, with a BA level of 3.5 to walk down to Fountain Square for their panhandling shift. I agree. Pay for a Yellow Taxi for them. It will be a lot cheaper.
It is hard for those people holding a 40 in one hand and a blunt in the other, with a BA level of 3.5 to walk down to Fountain Square for their panhandling shift. I agree. Pay for a Yellow Taxi for them. It will be a lot cheaper.
Yes, I am predicting that the majority of riders will be persons who have free transit. This is about the same as Metro. And, if built, the cars will become the principal means of transportation for the homeless. Of course, the City could prevent this by requiring a payment for ridership by all persons. Will they do this? I don't think so.
It is hard for those people holding a 40 in one hand and a blunt in the other, with a BA level of 3.5 to walk down to Fountain Square for their panhandling shift. I agree. Pay for a Yellow Taxi for them. It will be a lot cheaper.
BA...geeze, for a minute I thought, Bachelor of Arts? 3.5 GPA? Then I realized I was on the wrong thread. Again.
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.
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.
