CSNbbs
Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Big12bbs (/forum-260.html)
+---- Forum: Big 12 Team Talk (/forum-783.html)
+----- Forum: The Gregory A. Ruehlmann Sr. Memorial Cincinnati Board (/forum-404.html)
+----- Thread: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight (/thread-810171.html)



RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatMan - 06-07-2017 07:52 AM

(06-07-2017 07:43 AM)geef Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-06-2017 11:53 PM)geef Wrote:  Fair enough. I hope they ultimately get to use Nippert. It's perfect in nearly every sense. If not Nippert, I'm all in with the Taft High School site. I feel like Oakley has too many of the same elements - in terms of walkable/ city-scale connections to the area around it, and backed up to an Interstate - that Crew Stadium does. The Newport site is intriguing, but we have two stadiums along the river, and I'd love a more unique location. Now, where do I THINK they'll pick? Probably Oakley. Is that going to be announced when they reveal the design in a few weeks? I can't conceive of a design that isn't place-based and would work on all three sites. Curious to hear your thoughts......

I think you're right on...Oakley will probably be the spot they choose just for the ease of property transition and logistics, but ti definitely would not be the best.

I'm back and forth on Taft vs. Newport honestly. Taft would be nice due to it's closeness to Washington Park and Findlay Market, however, it is still pretty far from the "center" of OTR (Vine between Liberty and Central) and would be a logistical nightmare as well as an input-output issue for traffic given the lack of easement space for road widening in the area. I also worry about the neighborhood that it would be in...while OTR has been improved, the area around Taft HS has not, and the stadium would be smack in the middle of the Laurel HUD project.

I think the skyline view they could build into the Newport site would immediately make our stadium one of the more recognizable stadia in the country (in the same way that PNC Park does for the Pirates) while also giving some nice, proximate amenities (Hofbrauhaus for the die-hards, the Levee for the families, downtown and Covington Historic District are a 5-10 minute walk away as well). Traffic would be an issue if they didn't funnel through and lane shift the Taylor-Southgate Bridge back to 71/471 after the games, but the fact that the AA Highway development would be done by then would make the surface issues much less processed.

Nippert is the best site, but I think they ownerships' ambition is a bit too high to keep them there. So most likely to me would be Oakley, but I personally would lean towards Newport, and would be fine with Taft HS if they increase the police presence and found a way to funnel pedestrian traffic safely from OTR to the stadium.

I haven't lived in Cincinnati for years, although I went to a game at Nippert last year and know a bit about each of those sites - you nailed the intricacies of each. Well done. The financing piece will obviously be interesting as well. I wasn't thrilled - to say the least - about either Berding's or Lindner's statements. They're being too cute with regard to the tax piece. Yes, of course they aren't asking for a tax increase and they're proposing more private funding than any stadium project in Cincinnati history (bar Nippert), but they are asking for an extension of a very unpopular tax at a time when the region has much more pressing needs.

That's the thing that I doubt many people who aren't in the know about the project will pick up. I don't think the local government will market that renewal as the "FCC Stadium tax" when they push it onto the ballot, and that's very close to deception of the public. Personally, I wonder if the ownership group would tap CPS if they choose the Taft HS site, seeing as how that is the primary stadium for a few different high schools now, and was built with the help of the Tobacco Fund in the late 00's.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - 50Cent - 06-07-2017 08:47 AM

(06-07-2017 07:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 07:43 AM)geef Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-06-2017 11:53 PM)geef Wrote:  Fair enough. I hope they ultimately get to use Nippert. It's perfect in nearly every sense. If not Nippert, I'm all in with the Taft High School site. I feel like Oakley has too many of the same elements - in terms of walkable/ city-scale connections to the area around it, and backed up to an Interstate - that Crew Stadium does. The Newport site is intriguing, but we have two stadiums along the river, and I'd love a more unique location. Now, where do I THINK they'll pick? Probably Oakley. Is that going to be announced when they reveal the design in a few weeks? I can't conceive of a design that isn't place-based and would work on all three sites. Curious to hear your thoughts......

I think you're right on...Oakley will probably be the spot they choose just for the ease of property transition and logistics, but ti definitely would not be the best.

I'm back and forth on Taft vs. Newport honestly. Taft would be nice due to it's closeness to Washington Park and Findlay Market, however, it is still pretty far from the "center" of OTR (Vine between Liberty and Central) and would be a logistical nightmare as well as an input-output issue for traffic given the lack of easement space for road widening in the area. I also worry about the neighborhood that it would be in...while OTR has been improved, the area around Taft HS has not, and the stadium would be smack in the middle of the Laurel HUD project.

I think the skyline view they could build into the Newport site would immediately make our stadium one of the more recognizable stadia in the country (in the same way that PNC Park does for the Pirates) while also giving some nice, proximate amenities (Hofbrauhaus for the die-hards, the Levee for the families, downtown and Covington Historic District are a 5-10 minute walk away as well). Traffic would be an issue if they didn't funnel through and lane shift the Taylor-Southgate Bridge back to 71/471 after the games, but the fact that the AA Highway development would be done by then would make the surface issues much less processed.

Nippert is the best site, but I think they ownerships' ambition is a bit too high to keep them there. So most likely to me would be Oakley, but I personally would lean towards Newport, and would be fine with Taft HS if they increase the police presence and found a way to funnel pedestrian traffic safely from OTR to the stadium.

I haven't lived in Cincinnati for years, although I went to a game at Nippert last year and know a bit about each of those sites - you nailed the intricacies of each. Well done. The financing piece will obviously be interesting as well. I wasn't thrilled - to say the least - about either Berding's or Lindner's statements. They're being too cute with regard to the tax piece. Yes, of course they aren't asking for a tax increase and they're proposing more private funding than any stadium project in Cincinnati history (bar Nippert), but they are asking for an extension of a very unpopular tax at a time when the region has much more pressing needs.

That's the thing that I doubt many people who aren't in the know about the project will pick up. I don't think the local government will market that renewal as the "FCC Stadium tax" when they push it onto the ballot, and that's very close to deception of the public. Personally, I wonder if the ownership group would tap CPS if they choose the Taft HS site, seeing as how that is the primary stadium for a few different high schools now, and was built with the help of the Tobacco Fund in the late 00's.

I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatMan - 06-07-2017 09:03 AM

(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

Absolutely...I just think the community has soured so much because of the Bengals bending the county over that it's DOA at this point unless they do some backroom deals without the public's consent. I'm with you though, $100M is not an insane amount of money considering if they do build it right, and in the right area, the economic impact of the stadium itself will probably eclipse that in a few years.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatsUC - 06-07-2017 10:19 AM

(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 07:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 07:43 AM)geef Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-06-2017 11:53 PM)geef Wrote:  Fair enough. I hope they ultimately get to use Nippert. It's perfect in nearly every sense. If not Nippert, I'm all in with the Taft High School site. I feel like Oakley has too many of the same elements - in terms of walkable/ city-scale connections to the area around it, and backed up to an Interstate - that Crew Stadium does. The Newport site is intriguing, but we have two stadiums along the river, and I'd love a more unique location. Now, where do I THINK they'll pick? Probably Oakley. Is that going to be announced when they reveal the design in a few weeks? I can't conceive of a design that isn't place-based and would work on all three sites. Curious to hear your thoughts......

I think you're right on...Oakley will probably be the spot they choose just for the ease of property transition and logistics, but ti definitely would not be the best.

I'm back and forth on Taft vs. Newport honestly. Taft would be nice due to it's closeness to Washington Park and Findlay Market, however, it is still pretty far from the "center" of OTR (Vine between Liberty and Central) and would be a logistical nightmare as well as an input-output issue for traffic given the lack of easement space for road widening in the area. I also worry about the neighborhood that it would be in...while OTR has been improved, the area around Taft HS has not, and the stadium would be smack in the middle of the Laurel HUD project.

I think the skyline view they could build into the Newport site would immediately make our stadium one of the more recognizable stadia in the country (in the same way that PNC Park does for the Pirates) while also giving some nice, proximate amenities (Hofbrauhaus for the die-hards, the Levee for the families, downtown and Covington Historic District are a 5-10 minute walk away as well). Traffic would be an issue if they didn't funnel through and lane shift the Taylor-Southgate Bridge back to 71/471 after the games, but the fact that the AA Highway development would be done by then would make the surface issues much less processed.

Nippert is the best site, but I think they ownerships' ambition is a bit too high to keep them there. So most likely to me would be Oakley, but I personally would lean towards Newport, and would be fine with Taft HS if they increase the police presence and found a way to funnel pedestrian traffic safely from OTR to the stadium.

I haven't lived in Cincinnati for years, although I went to a game at Nippert last year and know a bit about each of those sites - you nailed the intricacies of each. Well done. The financing piece will obviously be interesting as well. I wasn't thrilled - to say the least - about either Berding's or Lindner's statements. They're being too cute with regard to the tax piece. Yes, of course they aren't asking for a tax increase and they're proposing more private funding than any stadium project in Cincinnati history (bar Nippert), but they are asking for an extension of a very unpopular tax at a time when the region has much more pressing needs.

That's the thing that I doubt many people who aren't in the know about the project will pick up. I don't think the local government will market that renewal as the "FCC Stadium tax" when they push it onto the ballot, and that's very close to deception of the public. Personally, I wonder if the ownership group would tap CPS if they choose the Taft HS site, seeing as how that is the primary stadium for a few different high schools now, and was built with the help of the Tobacco Fund in the late 00's.

I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

Yesterday, Kroger announced they will put a new grocery store downtown - the first since 1969 - as part of an 18 story, $90M residential/commercial development. The new building will be on Walnut - directly on the streetcar line - which is a positive factor as Kroger expects many of its customers to be walk-ins from the neighborhood. Along with GE, I'd say streetcar influence will trump just about any development a soccer stadium may spur.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatsUC - 06-07-2017 10:23 AM

(06-07-2017 09:03 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

Absolutely...I just think the community has soured so much because of the Bengals bending the county over that it's DOA at this point unless they do some backroom deals without the public's consent. I'm with you though, $100M is not an insane amount of money considering if they do build it right, and in the right area, the economic impact of the stadium itself will probably eclipse that in a few years.

The impact of sports stadiums is grossly overrated. I personally think it's a shame that massive, prime riverfront property is inhabited by a structure that gets used 10-15 times a year.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatMan - 06-07-2017 10:50 AM

(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 09:03 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

Absolutely...I just think the community has soured so much because of the Bengals bending the county over that it's DOA at this point unless they do some backroom deals without the public's consent. I'm with you though, $100M is not an insane amount of money considering if they do build it right, and in the right area, the economic impact of the stadium itself will probably eclipse that in a few years.

The impact of sports stadiums is grossly overrated. I personally think it's a shame that massive, prime riverfront property is inhabited by a structure that gets used mate 10-15 times a year.

And brings 65,000 people to the Riverfront each of those 10-15 times. I guess I just can't see what else would go there...they've already got a full park as well as a hotel, retail/food business area, and a major corporate tenant (who all came down there likely BECAUSE of those stadiums).


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - bearcatfan - 06-07-2017 12:16 PM

(06-07-2017 10:50 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 09:03 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

Absolutely...I just think the community has soured so much because of the Bengals bending the county over that it's DOA at this point unless they do some backroom deals without the public's consent. I'm with you though, $100M is not an insane amount of money considering if they do build it right, and in the right area, the economic impact of the stadium itself will probably eclipse that in a few years.

The impact of sports stadiums is grossly overrated. I personally think it's a shame that massive, prime riverfront property is inhabited by a structure that gets used mate 10-15 times a year.

And brings 65,000 people to the Riverfront each of those 10-15 times. I guess I just can't see what else would go there...they've already got a full park as well as a hotel, retail/food business area, and a major corporate tenant (who all came down there likely BECAUSE of those stadiums).

I have said it before - PBS should have been built as a domed stadium. Indianapolis gets a lot more use out of their stadium - including NCAA basketball.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatMan - 06-07-2017 12:41 PM

(06-07-2017 12:16 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 10:50 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 09:03 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

Absolutely...I just think the community has soured so much because of the Bengals bending the county over that it's DOA at this point unless they do some backroom deals without the public's consent. I'm with you though, $100M is not an insane amount of money considering if they do build it right, and in the right area, the economic impact of the stadium itself will probably eclipse that in a few years.

The impact of sports stadiums is grossly overrated. I personally think it's a shame that massive, prime riverfront property is inhabited by a structure that gets used mate 10-15 times a year.

And brings 65,000 people to the Riverfront each of those 10-15 times. I guess I just can't see what else would go there...they've already got a full park as well as a hotel, retail/food business area, and a major corporate tenant (who all came down there likely BECAUSE of those stadiums).

I have said it before - PBS should have been built as a domed stadium. Indianapolis gets a lot more use out of their stadium - including NCAA basketball.

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, Mike Brown doesn't care about any of that ****.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - SuperFlyBCat - 06-07-2017 12:44 PM

(06-07-2017 10:19 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 07:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 07:43 AM)geef Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I think you're right on...Oakley will probably be the spot they choose just for the ease of property transition and logistics, but ti definitely would not be the best.

I'm back and forth on Taft vs. Newport honestly. Taft would be nice due to it's closeness to Washington Park and Findlay Market, however, it is still pretty far from the "center" of OTR (Vine between Liberty and Central) and would be a logistical nightmare as well as an input-output issue for traffic given the lack of easement space for road widening in the area. I also worry about the neighborhood that it would be in...while OTR has been improved, the area around Taft HS has not, and the stadium would be smack in the middle of the Laurel HUD project.

I think the skyline view they could build into the Newport site would immediately make our stadium one of the more recognizable stadia in the country (in the same way that PNC Park does for the Pirates) while also giving some nice, proximate amenities (Hofbrauhaus for the die-hards, the Levee for the families, downtown and Covington Historic District are a 5-10 minute walk away as well). Traffic would be an issue if they didn't funnel through and lane shift the Taylor-Southgate Bridge back to 71/471 after the games, but the fact that the AA Highway development would be done by then would make the surface issues much less processed.

Nippert is the best site, but I think they ownerships' ambition is a bit too high to keep them there. So most likely to me would be Oakley, but I personally would lean towards Newport, and would be fine with Taft HS if they increase the police presence and found a way to funnel pedestrian traffic safely from OTR to the stadium.

I haven't lived in Cincinnati for years, although I went to a game at Nippert last year and know a bit about each of those sites - you nailed the intricacies of each. Well done. The financing piece will obviously be interesting as well. I wasn't thrilled - to say the least - about either Berding's or Lindner's statements. They're being too cute with regard to the tax piece. Yes, of course they aren't asking for a tax increase and they're proposing more private funding than any stadium project in Cincinnati history (bar Nippert), but they are asking for an extension of a very unpopular tax at a time when the region has much more pressing needs.

That's the thing that I doubt many people who aren't in the know about the project will pick up. I don't think the local government will market that renewal as the "FCC Stadium tax" when they push it onto the ballot, and that's very close to deception of the public. Personally, I wonder if the ownership group would tap CPS if they choose the Taft HS site, seeing as how that is the primary stadium for a few different high schools now, and was built with the help of the Tobacco Fund in the late 00's.

I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

Yesterday, Kroger announced they will put a new grocery store downtown - the first since 1969 - as part of an 18 story, $90M residential/commercial development. The new building will be on Walnut - directly on the streetcar line - which is a positive factor as Kroger expects many of its customers to be walk-ins from the neighborhood. Along with GE, I'd say streetcar influence will trump just about any development a soccer stadium may spur.

The streetcar is overwhelmingly used by Suburban families who come to Downtown or OTR on the weekends. Exactly what the urban dwelling pro streetcar people said would not happen. People living and working downtown and OTR are not taking the streetcar to work and home. As of now the streetcar is a tourist attraction. I walk to downtown from Covington, or take the tank trolley or uber. I never have even thought of getting on the streetcar.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatsUC - 06-07-2017 01:21 PM

(06-07-2017 10:50 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 09:03 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

Absolutely...I just think the community has soured so much because of the Bengals bending the county over that it's DOA at this point unless they do some backroom deals without the public's consent. I'm with you though, $100M is not an insane amount of money considering if they do build it right, and in the right area, the economic impact of the stadium itself will probably eclipse that in a few years.

The impact of sports stadiums is grossly overrated. I personally think it's a shame that massive, prime riverfront property is inhabited by a structure that gets used mate 10-15 times a year.

And brings 65,000 people to the Riverfront each of those 10-15 times. I guess I just can't see what else would go there...they've already got a full park as well as a hotel, retail/food business area, and a major corporate tenant (who all came down there likely BECAUSE of those stadiums).

I can see GAPB having a good ROI, but not PBS.

Apartments and offices aren't there because of sports stadiums. Hotel? Maybe, but look how long it took to lure one, even as new hotels popped up all over downtown.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatMan - 06-07-2017 01:27 PM

(06-07-2017 01:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 10:50 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 09:03 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

Absolutely...I just think the community has soured so much because of the Bengals bending the county over that it's DOA at this point unless they do some backroom deals without the public's consent. I'm with you though, $100M is not an insane amount of money considering if they do build it right, and in the right area, the economic impact of the stadium itself will probably eclipse that in a few years.

The impact of sports stadiums is grossly overrated. I personally think it's a shame that massive, prime riverfront property is inhabited by a structure that gets used mate 10-15 times a year.

And brings 65,000 people to the Riverfront each of those 10-15 times. I guess I just can't see what else would go there...they've already got a full park as well as a hotel, retail/food business area, and a major corporate tenant (who all came down there likely BECAUSE of those stadiums).

I can see GAPB having a good ROI, but not PBS.

Apartments and offices aren't there because of sports stadiums. Hotel? Maybe, but look how long it took to lure one, even as new hotels popped up all over downtown.

I didn't mention apartments anywhere in there. They were built because of the urban compression cultural phenomenon of the younger generations, not because of stadiums...but the retail and restaurant businesses sure came down there because of those and in turn, that increased traffic brought the park, which I believe played a part in GE coming down there...that and the fact that there was nowhere else to do new-con in the CBD lol.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatsUC - 06-07-2017 02:47 PM

(06-07-2017 01:27 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 01:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 10:50 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 10:23 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 09:03 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Absolutely...I just think the community has soured so much because of the Bengals bending the county over that it's DOA at this point unless they do some backroom deals without the public's consent. I'm with you though, $100M is not an insane amount of money considering if they do build it right, and in the right area, the economic impact of the stadium itself will probably eclipse that in a few years.

The impact of sports stadiums is grossly overrated. I personally think it's a shame that massive, prime riverfront property is inhabited by a structure that gets used mate 10-15 times a year.

And brings 65,000 people to the Riverfront each of those 10-15 times. I guess I just can't see what else would go there...they've already got a full park as well as a hotel, retail/food business area, and a major corporate tenant (who all came down there likely BECAUSE of those stadiums).

I can see GAPB having a good ROI, but not PBS.

Apartments and offices aren't there because of sports stadiums. Hotel? Maybe, but look how long it took to lure one, even as new hotels popped up all over downtown.

I didn't mention apartments anywhere in there. They were built because of the urban compression cultural phenomenon of the younger generations, not because of stadiums...but the retail and restaurant businesses sure came down there because of those and in turn, that increased traffic brought the park, which I believe played a part in GE coming down there...that and the fact that there was nowhere else to do new-con in the CBD lol.

Note that I said GAPB probably has good ROI, not PBS. Look where the restaurants wer built - next to GABP. Even the GAPB alone isn't enough. Riverfront Stadium was supposed to have a hotel next to it, but the separation from downtown and lack of anything else made it unfeasible. It housed TWO teams and the area surrounding was a dead zone.

Parks were first built on the riverfront beginning in the late 70's. Parks between the stadiums are an extension of age-old plans.

Unless the soccer stadium is put to other uses, I think its development potential is closer to PBS than GABP.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - BearcatMan - 06-07-2017 02:58 PM

(06-07-2017 02:47 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Note that I said GAPB probably has good ROI, not PBS. Look where the restaurants wer built - next to GABP. Even the GAPB alone isn't enough. Riverfront Stadium was supposed to have a hotel next to it, but the separation from downtown and lack of anything else made it unfeasible. It housed TWO teams and the area surrounding was a dead zone.

Parks were first built on the riverfront beginning in the late 70's. Parks between the stadiums are an extension of age-old plans.

Unless the soccer stadium is put to other uses, I think its development potential is closer to PBS than GABP.

Absolutely, but most open-air, outdoor stadiums don't have a ton of secondary value out of season unless they have other vendors/tenants or secondary events. The big thing to consider is that there will be more home games in an MLS season than an NFL season and it'll be during the summer instead of the fall to early winter.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - SuperFlyBCat - 06-07-2017 03:55 PM

If the local politicians try to give FC Cincy a bunch of money for the stadium, there will be enough enough signatures to get it on the the voting ballot.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - #41 - 06-07-2017 04:41 PM

(06-07-2017 03:55 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  If the local politicians try to give FC Cincy a bunch of money for the stadium, there will be enough enough signatures to get it on the the voting ballot.

Depends entirely on how it's structured, which government agency gives the money (city v. county is a huge difference), and how it's done. You can't just put anything onto the ballot -- this isn't California.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - levydl - 06-07-2017 06:21 PM

(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

The fact that we've done really dumb things in the past is a bad reason for doing a (supposedly) less dumb thing now. If the Bengals stadium and the streetcar are the baseline, nothing will ever seem like a bad deal.
Although I grant you that the idea of giving public money to freaking Carl Lindner's son so that he can build a soccer stadium might refute that point. I thought we'd learned from the Bengals debacle, but I guess not. Gluttons for punishment.

And every unconflicted economist who has looked at this issue has concluded that public funding of sports arenas does not spur development.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - JackieTreehorn - 06-07-2017 08:26 PM

(06-07-2017 06:21 PM)levydl Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

The fact that we've done really dumb things in the past is a bad reason for doing a (supposedly) less dumb thing now. If the Bengals stadium and the streetcar are the baseline, nothing will ever seem like a bad deal.
Although I grant you that the idea of giving public money to freaking Carl Lindner's son so that he can build a soccer stadium might refute that point. I thought we'd learned from the Bengals debacle, but I guess not. Gluttons for punishment.

And every unconflicted economist who has looked at this issue has concluded that public funding of sports arenas does not spur development.

The fact that we're even discussing the possible use of public money to help build a soccer stadium for a billionaire to support his vanity project is both sad and hilarious. If this means so much to him, he should use his own damn money to build it. If it cost the estimated $250 million, he would still have $750 million left over to try and make ends meet. I guess it would be a big sacrifice, I'm sure he could somehow find ways to scrape by, extend his meals with Hamburger Helper and start drinking Old Milwaukee, buy day old bread, get a more fuel efficient used car, down size his home, dump cable, purchase store brands and generics,...03-lmfao


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - gerhard911 - 06-07-2017 08:41 PM

(06-07-2017 08:26 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 06:21 PM)levydl Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 08:47 AM)50Cent Wrote:  I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

The fact that we've done really dumb things in the past is a bad reason for doing a (supposedly) less dumb thing now. If the Bengals stadium and the streetcar are the baseline, nothing will ever seem like a bad deal.
Although I grant you that the idea of giving public money to freaking Carl Lindner's son so that he can build a soccer stadium might refute that point. I thought we'd learned from the Bengals debacle, but I guess not. Gluttons for punishment.

And every unconflicted economist who has looked at this issue has concluded that public funding of sports arenas does not spur development.

The fact that we're even discussing the possible use of public money to help build a soccer stadium for a billionaire to support his vanity project is both sad and hilarious. If this means so much to him, he should use his own damn money to build it. If it cost the estimated $250 million, he would still have $750 million left over to try and make ends meet. I guess it would be a big sacrifice, I'm sure he could somehow find ways to scrape by, extend his meals with Hamburger Helper and start drinking Old Milwaukee, buy day old bread, get a more fuel efficient used car, down size his home, dump cable, purchase store brands and generics,...03-lmfao

Well, CIII doesn't drink and I doubt he would be willing to cut back anything on a personal level. More likely he would F with the peons who work for AFC / GAI. Merit raise ? I got's your merit raise right here...


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - Major ----de Coverley - 06-08-2017 05:35 AM

(06-07-2017 08:41 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 08:26 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 06:21 PM)levydl Wrote:  [quote='50Cent' pid='14385128' dateline='1496843278']
I frankly don't mind $100MM for this if it helps spur development in the city. The $100MM is far less than what was given to the reds and bengals and the Lindner group is paying half. That's much better than the prior deals. I'd much rather have an MLS franchise than an NBA or NHL team. Hopefully our city isn't as myopic about this as they were trains 150 years ago.

We've wasted more money on this useless tram sham.

The fact that we've done really dumb things in the past is a bad reason for doing a (supposedly) less dumb thing now. If the Bengals stadium and the streetcar are the baseline, nothing will ever seem like a bad deal.
Although I grant you that the idea of giving public money to freaking Carl Lindner's son so that he can build a soccer stadium might refute that point. I thought we'd learned from the Bengals debacle, but I guess not. Gluttons for punishment.

And every unconflicted economist who has looked at this issue has concluded that public funding of sports arenas does not spur development.

The fact that we're even discussing the possible use of public money to help build a soccer stadium for a billionaire to support his vanity project is both sad and hilarious. If this means so much to him, he should use his own damn money to build it. If it cost the estimated $250 million, he would still have $750 million left over to try and make ends meet. I guess it would be a big sacrifice, I'm sure he could somehow find ways to scrape by, extend his meals with Hamburger Helper and start drinking Old Milwaukee, buy day old bread, get a more fuel efficient used car, down size his home, dump cable, purchase store brands and generics,...03-lmfao

Well, CIII doesn't drink and I doubt he would be willing to cut back anything on a personal level. More likely he would F with the peons who work for AFC / GAI. Merit raise ? I got's your merit raise right here...
[/quote

Check out the chart of AFG. Since March of 2010 CIII's holdings in that stock alone have gone up by over 200 million.


RE: Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight - crex043 - 06-08-2017 06:08 AM

We should face the possibility in ten years that a) the Bengals may be entertaining a move to a larger market as they likely won't be receiving the same sweetheart deal from the county due to bridges burnt the last go around and b) the NFL may not command the same place in the market as they do now due to declining youth participation. Cincinnati should be prepared for the likelihood that we might not have an NFL team as the Bengals will not be holding us hostage again. $100 million at the end of the current term is a pretty reasonable investment to secure a major league Futbol franchise in a sport that is established internationally and is growing fast in the US. We'll be sorry if we don't have something to replace the Bengals when they set sail for San Diego or Mexico City.

Of course I could be way off and we could have standardized on blood sports in the US by then.