The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(02-11-2021 10:04 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 09:48 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 09:15 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 08:46 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 10:19 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Wonder if you could get away with using Gettler and moving soccer/track to the outdoor practice fields. Thats the only area on or near campus that could work.

Burnett Woods, man...the University is going to be regretting that decision for years.

Ben and Dee Gettler made a major gift to UC for construction and naming of the soccer complex when Varsity Village was being built and I'd be shocked if their family would want it removed or re-purposed, though that can sometimes happen with the donors' blessing.

What makes UC's campus great--compactness, becomes a liability when a large footprint is needed for such a facility as this. I would think CPS would object to giving up Coy Field and that's certainly not convenient to VV. Burnet Woods has been off the table for ages. The Fieldhouse footprint is too small.

One location that has been mentioned is intriguing: the parcels across from Campus Green that sits between the EPA and Burnet Woods. That could be a beautiful setting if done properly and it extends the campus a little north of MLK. But I'm guessing getting that done might be more daunting than what FC Cincinnati faced in the West End. Multiple residences would have to be acquired and demolished; streets and zoning altered and layers of other regulations changed I'm sure for properties adjoining a city park. Still, if UC could put a couple of classrooms in the building or move the African American Cultural Center from old Sanders, it becomes an academic/multi-purpose building rather than purely athletics and there could be state funding available to augment the private donations needed. And if someone named Lindner got involved, a mountain could be moved I'm sure.

This is one case where a campus in a cornfield has a distinct advantage over UC.

It is EXTREMELY hard to get around the rules for the biennium capital improvement disbursements from the state...and athletics would absolutely have to cut through about 1,500 miles of red tape for that.

It's probably just going to be Sheakley and LAX goes to using the soccer field full time. Far "straighter line" than any other option...only other thing I could see is the ED the block across Jefferson from those fields, but then you're looking at a $100M investment after property transfers and construction are figured out and we can't afford that. You could build out a permanent building with some quality office space and locker room facilities over the currently existing Sheakley space for far less.

And if Sheakley, a question remains whether it was structurally engineered to support anything more than an empty field on top since the basketball practice gym is below the surface there.

I'm a little biased I suppose, but UC has done more to drive the revitalization of Uptown than any other single entity. It would be great to see the Cincinnati Park Board, Zoo, and other interested parties come together to identify and create a space that could be enhanced by a well designed facility that might extend some greenspace and provide some auxiliary (seasonal) parking for those entities.

I can't recall if the Zoo had to use eminent domain to clear that large parcel west of Vine Street for their excellent parking facility and overhead walkway. But my guess is the end result was less vehicular traffic and street parking for the residents north and east of the Zoo footprint than ever before. Any solution likely has to be a win/win for both Uptown's major players and local residents in order to happen.

Wait, which Sheakley is above the practice basketball courts? The field right behind left field and outside the lindner center, or the sit where the Bubble currently is?

I'm talking about where the bubble is, he was referring the the patch of turf behind left field...and yes, they would obviously have to do some geotech in there to get it ready for a multi-story foundation where the current practice facility is..

(02-11-2021 10:04 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 09:48 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 09:15 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 08:46 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 10:19 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Wonder if you could get away with using Gettler and moving soccer/track to the outdoor practice fields. Thats the only area on or near campus that could work.

Burnett Woods, man...the University is going to be regretting that decision for years.

Ben and Dee Gettler made a major gift to UC for construction and naming of the soccer complex when Varsity Village was being built and I'd be shocked if their family would want it removed or re-purposed, though that can sometimes happen with the donors' blessing.

What makes UC's campus great--compactness, becomes a liability when a large footprint is needed for such a facility as this. I would think CPS would object to giving up Coy Field and that's certainly not convenient to VV. Burnet Woods has been off the table for ages. The Fieldhouse footprint is too small.

One location that has been mentioned is intriguing: the parcels across from Campus Green that sits between the EPA and Burnet Woods. That could be a beautiful setting if done properly and it extends the campus a little north of MLK. But I'm guessing getting that done might be more daunting than what FC Cincinnati faced in the West End. Multiple residences would have to be acquired and demolished; streets and zoning altered and layers of other regulations changed I'm sure for properties adjoining a city park. Still, if UC could put a couple of classrooms in the building or move the African American Cultural Center from old Sanders, it becomes an academic/multi-purpose building rather than purely athletics and there could be state funding available to augment the private donations needed. And if someone named Lindner got involved, a mountain could be moved I'm sure.

This is one case where a campus in a cornfield has a distinct advantage over UC.

It is EXTREMELY hard to get around the rules for the biennium capital improvement disbursements from the state...and athletics would absolutely have to cut through about 1,500 miles of red tape for that.

It's probably just going to be Sheakley and LAX goes to using the soccer field full time. Far "straighter line" than any other option...only other thing I could see is the ED the block across Jefferson from those fields, but then you're looking at a $100M investment after property transfers and construction are figured out and we can't afford that. You could build out a permanent building with some quality office space and locker room facilities over the currently existing Sheakley space for far less.

And if Sheakley, a question remains whether it was structurally engineered to support anything more than an empty field on top since the basketball practice gym is below the surface there.

I'm a little biased I suppose, but UC has done more to drive the revitalization of Uptown than any other single entity. It would be great to see the Cincinnati Park Board, Zoo, and other interested parties come together to identify and create a space that could be enhanced by a well designed facility that might extend some greenspace and provide some auxiliary (seasonal) parking for those entities.

I can't recall if the Zoo had to use eminent domain to clear that large parcel west of Vine Street for their excellent parking facility and overhead walkway. But my guess is the end result was less vehicular traffic and street parking for the residents north and east of the Zoo footprint than ever before. Any solution likely has to be a win/win for both Uptown's major players and local residents in order to happen.

Wait, which Sheakley is above the practice basketball courts? The field right behind left field and outside the lindner center, or the sit where the Bubble currently is?

Good catch; I was referring to Sheakley Lawn which sits above the underground basketball practice gym, just south of 5th/3rd Arena. The other Sheakley named facility (that has the bubble now) would seem the only remaining space on campus that makes sense. Sorry to confuse matters...

(02-11-2021 09:40 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The other thing that really holds UC back, in terms of being land-locked, is the general animosity and antipathy that exists between the City of Cincinnati and the University. So, part of the Burnett Woods issue is not only the issue of "Greenspace" and "Nature Preservation," but also that Burnett Woods functions as a "buffer" between the Campus and the neighborhoods, so any move by UC to "use" Burnett Woods instantly becomes one of "encroachment." If the Campus tried to expand by purchasing adjacent...even derelict...properties, you'd have a fight on your hands by Coreyville and Clifton neighborhoods over encroachment. Yes, there is the sheer cost of property acquisition, but you also have to deal with the surrounding neighborhoods and their associations, who frankly don't want to see UC grow.

Our situation is more akin to Temple University... Philadelphia enjoys the benefits having Temple University brings, but at the same time the City constantly fights Temple University. I have never really understood the antipathy that the City of Cincinnati has towards UC; UC is the single biggest employer in Cincinnati, it's a world-class University, the Hospital and Medical School makes Cincinnati a much better place to live in, and the University sports teams have brought both entertainment and success to the city at prices most common people can actually afford. And yet, the City at best turns a blind eye towards the University and at worst seems to oppose the University from ever growing beyond what it already is. Contrast that with my experience living in Morgantown, where WVU does pretty much whatever they want and Mon County funds everything from a brand-new baseball stadium to now a new natatorium even while the University continues to eat Morgantown and the County like a cancer, from the inside-out.

The City of Cincinnati and it's neighborhoods would do better, I think, if they actually worked WITH UC rather than constantly fighting against UC...but I don't see that happening any time soon. So, UC is probably stuck with the current campus footprint for the foreseeable future.

It's the exact opposite here in Columbus. OSU and the closely affiliated Campus Partners have been buying up everything within earshot of campus. A few years ago, they bought a couple convenience stores in the "ghetto" south of campus and shut them down to run out the riff raff -- in an attempt to make the areas off campus more attractive to perspective students. They can't really expand north or west, but they have been very aggressive in attaining properties south and east of campus. OSU is obviously not nearly as landlocked/cramped at UC campus, but it's still an urban campus in a similar type of neighborhood. Sometimes it feels like OSU runs Columbus, and in Cincinnati, it's the polar opposite with UC.

If OSU wanted to build a new athletics facility, I feel like the city would move heaven and earth to make it happen.

(02-11-2021 09:40 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The other thing that really holds UC back, in terms of being land-locked, is the general animosity and antipathy that exists between the City of Cincinnati and the University. So, part of the Burnett Woods issue is not only the issue of "Greenspace" and "Nature Preservation," but also that Burnett Woods functions as a "buffer" between the Campus and the neighborhoods, so any move by UC to "use" Burnett Woods instantly becomes one of "encroachment." If the Campus tried to expand by purchasing adjacent...even derelict...properties, you'd have a fight on your hands by Coreyville and Clifton neighborhoods over encroachment. Yes, there is the sheer cost of property acquisition, but you also have to deal with the surrounding neighborhoods and their associations, who frankly don't want to see UC grow.

Our situation is more akin to Temple University... Philadelphia enjoys the benefits having Temple University brings, but at the same time the City constantly fights Temple University. I have never really understood the antipathy that the City of Cincinnati has towards UC; UC is the single biggest employer in Cincinnati, it's a world-class University, the Hospital and Medical School makes Cincinnati a much better place to live in, and the University sports teams have brought both entertainment and success to the city at prices most common people can actually afford. And yet, the City at best turns a blind eye towards the University and at worst seems to oppose the University from ever growing beyond what it already is. Contrast that with my experience living in Morgantown, where WVU does pretty much whatever they want and Mon County funds everything from a brand-new baseball stadium to now a new natatorium even while the University continues to eat Morgantown and the County like a cancer, from the inside-out.

The City of Cincinnati and it's neighborhoods would do better, I think, if they actually worked WITH UC rather than constantly fighting against UC...but I don't see that happening any time soon. So, UC is probably stuck with the current campus footprint for the foreseeable future.

I think the city is pro-park, not anti-UC.

Burnett Woods is off-limits. But the city supported UC taking all the land between Calhoun and McMillan via eminent domain. The city persisted in their support despite years of lawsuits. The city also supported UC in constructing Stratford Heights, if I recall correctly.

The main problem is that UC is one of the densest university campuses in the country. We have only 137 acres.

I looked up about 4 dozen inner city schools a few years back, and here's the densest ones I could find:

642 students/acre - - Depaul ( 36 acres, 23110 students )
590 students/acre - - Columbia ( 56 acres, 33,032 students ) has several branch campuses
565 students/acre - - Portland State ( 50 acres, 28,241 students )
344 students/acre - - Temple ( 115 acres, 39,515 students )
324 students/acre - - Cincinnati ( 137 acres, 44,338 students )
267 students/acre - - UW-Milwaukee ( 104 acres, 27,813 students )
218 students/acre - - NYU ( 230 acres, 50,027 students )
217 students/acre - - Pitt ( 132 acres, 28,617 students )
217 students/acre - - San Francisco State ( 134 acres, 29,045 students )
209 students/acre - - San Jose State ( 154 acres, 32,154 students )
207 students/acre - - Cleveland State ( 85 acres, 17,620 students )

(02-11-2021 11:35 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  If OSU wanted to build a new athletics facility, I feel like the city would move heaven and earth to make it happen.

Yes, I agree and didn't make that point quite so plainly in my earlier posts. I'm not sure the City of Cincinnati fully values UC as a process partner in the Uptown renewal. Did the City do more to facilitate further expansion of Children's Hospital? Clear the hurdles for FC Cincinnati to build a new urban stadium? I would say yes, when it came to resolving zoning challenges, mediating neighborhood issues, and improving infrastructure in both Avondale and the West End. And to me, that's an appropriate role for the City.

It's amazing to watch what the MLK interchange off I-71 is doing for that location. It's a different environment for sure but what's happening Uptown in terms of redevelopment is rivaled only by OTR. The right design and location for an IPF will only enhance the campus area.

(02-11-2021 11:46 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 09:40 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The other thing that really holds UC back, in terms of being land-locked, is the general animosity and antipathy that exists between the City of Cincinnati and the University. So, part of the Burnett Woods issue is not only the issue of "Greenspace" and "Nature Preservation," but also that Burnett Woods functions as a "buffer" between the Campus and the neighborhoods, so any move by UC to "use" Burnett Woods instantly becomes one of "encroachment." If the Campus tried to expand by purchasing adjacent...even derelict...properties, you'd have a fight on your hands by Coreyville and Clifton neighborhoods over encroachment. Yes, there is the sheer cost of property acquisition, but you also have to deal with the surrounding neighborhoods and their associations, who frankly don't want to see UC grow.

Our situation is more akin to Temple University... Philadelphia enjoys the benefits having Temple University brings, but at the same time the City constantly fights Temple University. I have never really understood the antipathy that the City of Cincinnati has towards UC; UC is the single biggest employer in Cincinnati, it's a world-class University, the Hospital and Medical School makes Cincinnati a much better place to live in, and the University sports teams have brought both entertainment and success to the city at prices most common people can actually afford. And yet, the City at best turns a blind eye towards the University and at worst seems to oppose the University from ever growing beyond what it already is. Contrast that with my experience living in Morgantown, where WVU does pretty much whatever they want and Mon County funds everything from a brand-new baseball stadium to now a new natatorium even while the University continues to eat Morgantown and the County like a cancer, from the inside-out.

The City of Cincinnati and it's neighborhoods would do better, I think, if they actually worked WITH UC rather than constantly fighting against UC...but I don't see that happening any time soon. So, UC is probably stuck with the current campus footprint for the foreseeable future.

I think the city is pro-park, not anti-UC.

Burnett Woods is off-limits. But the city supported UC taking all the land between Calhoun and McMillan via eminent domain. The city persisted in their support despite years of lawsuits. The city also supported UC in constructing Stratford Heights, if I recall correctly.

The main problem is that UC is one of the densest university campuses in the country. We have only 137 acres.

I looked up about 4 dozen inner city schools a few years back, and here's the densest ones I could find:

642 students/acre - - Depaul ( 36 acres, 23110 students )
590 students/acre - - Columbia ( 56 acres, 33,032 students ) has several branch campuses
565 students/acre - - Portland State ( 50 acres, 28,241 students )
344 students/acre - - Temple ( 115 acres, 39,515 students )
324 students/acre - - Cincinnati ( 137 acres, 44,338 students )
267 students/acre - - UW-Milwaukee ( 104 acres, 27,813 students )
218 students/acre - - NYU ( 230 acres, 50,027 students )
217 students/acre - - Pitt ( 132 acres, 28,617 students )
217 students/acre - - San Francisco State ( 134 acres, 29,045 students )
209 students/acre - - San Jose State ( 154 acres, 32,154 students )
207 students/acre - - Cleveland State ( 85 acres, 17,620 students )

DePaul had to go 2 miles from their loop campus and nearly 7 miles from their main campus to build their new basketball arena. Dense urban campuses definitely present a LOT of challenges.

(02-11-2021 11:06 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 10:04 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 09:48 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 09:15 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 08:46 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Ben and Dee Gettler made a major gift to UC for construction and naming of the soccer complex when Varsity Village was being built and I'd be shocked if their family would want it removed or re-purposed, though that can sometimes happen with the donors' blessing.

What makes UC's campus great--compactness, becomes a liability when a large footprint is needed for such a facility as this. I would think CPS would object to giving up Coy Field and that's certainly not convenient to VV. Burnet Woods has been off the table for ages. The Fieldhouse footprint is too small.

One location that has been mentioned is intriguing: the parcels across from Campus Green that sits between the EPA and Burnet Woods. That could be a beautiful setting if done properly and it extends the campus a little north of MLK. But I'm guessing getting that done might be more daunting than what FC Cincinnati faced in the West End. Multiple residences would have to be acquired and demolished; streets and zoning altered and layers of other regulations changed I'm sure for properties adjoining a city park. Still, if UC could put a couple of classrooms in the building or move the African American Cultural Center from old Sanders, it becomes an academic/multi-purpose building rather than purely athletics and there could be state funding available to augment the private donations needed. And if someone named Lindner got involved, a mountain could be moved I'm sure.

This is one case where a campus in a cornfield has a distinct advantage over UC.

It is EXTREMELY hard to get around the rules for the biennium capital improvement disbursements from the state...and athletics would absolutely have to cut through about 1,500 miles of red tape for that.

It's probably just going to be Sheakley and LAX goes to using the soccer field full time. Far "straighter line" than any other option...only other thing I could see is the ED the block across Jefferson from those fields, but then you're looking at a $100M investment after property transfers and construction are figured out and we can't afford that. You could build out a permanent building with some quality office space and locker room facilities over the currently existing Sheakley space for far less.

And if Sheakley, a question remains whether it was structurally engineered to support anything more than an empty field on top since the basketball practice gym is below the surface there.

I'm a little biased I suppose, but UC has done more to drive the revitalization of Uptown than any other single entity. It would be great to see the Cincinnati Park Board, Zoo, and other interested parties come together to identify and create a space that could be enhanced by a well designed facility that might extend some greenspace and provide some auxiliary (seasonal) parking for those entities.

I can't recall if the Zoo had to use eminent domain to clear that large parcel west of Vine Street for their excellent parking facility and overhead walkway. But my guess is the end result was less vehicular traffic and street parking for the residents north and east of the Zoo footprint than ever before. Any solution likely has to be a win/win for both Uptown's major players and local residents in order to happen.

Wait, which Sheakley is above the practice basketball courts? The field right behind left field and outside the lindner center, or the sit where the Bubble currently is?

Good catch; I was referring to Sheakley Lawn which sits above the underground basketball practice gym, just south of 5th/3rd Arena. The other Sheakley named facility (that has the bubble now) would seem the only remaining space on campus that makes sense. Sorry to confuse matters...

Ok I was just confused because in my mind it's a no brainer that a new IPF would go where the bubble currently sits. But I get it's fun to daydream about other options.

(02-11-2021 01:26 PM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  Ok I was just confused because in my mind it's a no brainer that a new IPF would go where the bubble currently sits. But I get it's fun to daydream about other options.

The only argument I would see against that is that there would be no outdoor fields to use unless you go back to practicing in Nippert.

They already practice at Nippert quite a bit

(02-11-2021 01:51 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:26 PM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  Ok I was just confused because in my mind it's a no brainer that a new IPF would go where the bubble currently sits. But I get it's fun to daydream about other options.

The only argument I would see against that is that there would be no outdoor fields to use unless you go back to practicing in Nippert.

Build with a retractable roof.

(02-11-2021 02:25 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:51 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:26 PM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  Ok I was just confused because in my mind it's a no brainer that a new IPF would go where the bubble currently sits. But I get it's fun to daydream about other options.

The only argument I would see against that is that there would be no outdoor fields to use unless you go back to practicing in Nippert.

Build with a retractable roof.

Double the price...you ponying up?

(02-11-2021 03:24 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 02:25 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:51 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:26 PM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  Ok I was just confused because in my mind it's a no brainer that a new IPF would go where the bubble currently sits. But I get it's fun to daydream about other options.

The only argument I would see against that is that there would be no outdoor fields to use unless you go back to practicing in Nippert.

Build with a retractable roof.

Double the price...you ponying up?

Some.

One has to assume before bringing up the subject UC determined where it could be sited. But our speculation is fun.

(02-11-2021 09:40 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The other thing that really holds UC back, in terms of being land-locked, is the general animosity and antipathy that exists between the City of Cincinnati and the University. So, part of the Burnett Woods issue is not only the issue of "Greenspace" and "Nature Preservation," but also that Burnett Woods functions as a "buffer" between the Campus and the neighborhoods, so any move by UC to "use" Burnett Woods instantly becomes one of "encroachment." If the Campus tried to expand by purchasing adjacent...even derelict...properties, you'd have a fight on your hands by Coreyville and Clifton neighborhoods over encroachment. Yes, there is the sheer cost of property acquisition, but you also have to deal with the surrounding neighborhoods and their associations, who frankly don't want to see UC grow.

Our situation is more akin to Temple University... Philadelphia enjoys the benefits having Temple University brings, but at the same time the City constantly fights Temple University. I have never really understood the antipathy that the City of Cincinnati has towards UC; UC is the single biggest employer in Cincinnati, it's a world-class University, the Hospital and Medical School makes Cincinnati a much better place to live in, and the University sports teams have brought both entertainment and success to the city at prices most common people can actually afford. And yet, the City at best turns a blind eye towards the University and at worst seems to oppose the University from ever growing beyond what it already is. Contrast that with my experience living in Morgantown, where WVU does pretty much whatever they want and Mon County funds everything from a brand-new baseball stadium to now a new natatorium even while the University continues to eat Morgantown and the County like a cancer, from the inside-out.

The City of Cincinnati and it's neighborhoods would do better, I think, if they actually worked WITH UC rather than constantly fighting against UC...but I don't see that happening any time soon. So, UC is probably stuck with the current campus footprint for the foreseeable future.

Like Captain Bearcat said, I think the city is more pro park than anti-UC. Over on BCJ someone talked about how they tried to build an art building or something in Burnett Woods, just one single building, and that it was met with huge fighting in the neighborhoods about how Burnett Woods should be used and if it should built in. The city and neighborhoods are just extremely pro-park.

I think the city has helped UC some. UC is growing off campus. UC just bought that land owned by the hospitals that sat there between Riddle/MLK/Clifton/Probasco. UC has already built a DAAP Annex building there and have placard lots there too. UC also bought the Christ Scientist church and are supposedly turning that into a DAAP workshop.

UC also built the 1819 Innovation Hub over on Reading and UC is working on the Digital Futures building there on the corner of MLK and Reading.

If you guys haven't seen, there are BIG plans for MLK and Reading. Here's the link to the Uptown Innovation Corridor - https://www.uptowninnovationcorridor.com/the-corridor

Here's the Digital Futures Complex page - http://uptown-gateway.com/, which falls under the SE Quadrant on the Uptown Innovation Corridor site

(02-12-2021 07:22 AM)Cattidude Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 09:40 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The other thing that really holds UC back, in terms of being land-locked, is the general animosity and antipathy that exists between the City of Cincinnati and the University. So, part of the Burnett Woods issue is not only the issue of "Greenspace" and "Nature Preservation," but also that Burnett Woods functions as a "buffer" between the Campus and the neighborhoods, so any move by UC to "use" Burnett Woods instantly becomes one of "encroachment." If the Campus tried to expand by purchasing adjacent...even derelict...properties, you'd have a fight on your hands by Coreyville and Clifton neighborhoods over encroachment. Yes, there is the sheer cost of property acquisition, but you also have to deal with the surrounding neighborhoods and their associations, who frankly don't want to see UC grow.

Our situation is more akin to Temple University... Philadelphia enjoys the benefits having Temple University brings, but at the same time the City constantly fights Temple University. I have never really understood the antipathy that the City of Cincinnati has towards UC; UC is the single biggest employer in Cincinnati, it's a world-class University, the Hospital and Medical School makes Cincinnati a much better place to live in, and the University sports teams have brought both entertainment and success to the city at prices most common people can actually afford. And yet, the City at best turns a blind eye towards the University and at worst seems to oppose the University from ever growing beyond what it already is. Contrast that with my experience living in Morgantown, where WVU does pretty much whatever they want and Mon County funds everything from a brand-new baseball stadium to now a new natatorium even while the University continues to eat Morgantown and the County like a cancer, from the inside-out.

The City of Cincinnati and it's neighborhoods would do better, I think, if they actually worked WITH UC rather than constantly fighting against UC...but I don't see that happening any time soon. So, UC is probably stuck with the current campus footprint for the foreseeable future.

Like Captain Bearcat said, I think the city is more pro park than anti-UC. Over on BCJ someone talked about how they tried to build an art building or something in Burnett Woods, just one single building, and that it was met with huge fighting in the neighborhoods about how Burnett Woods should be used and if it should built in. The city and neighborhoods are just extremely pro-park.

I think the city has helped UC some. UC is growing off campus. UC just bought that land owned by the hospitals that sat there between Riddle/MLK/Clifton/Probasco. UC has already built a DAAP Annex building there and have placard lots there too. UC also bought the Christ Scientist church and are supposedly turning that into a DAAP workshop.

UC also built the 1819 Innovation Hub over on Reading and UC is working on the Digital Futures building there on the corner of MLK and Reading.

If you guys haven't seen, there are BIG plans for MLK and Reading. Here's the link to the Uptown Innovation Corridor - https://www.uptowninnovationcorridor.com/the-corridor

Here's the Digital Futures Complex page - http://uptown-gateway.com/, which falls under the SE Quadrant on the Uptown Innovation Corridor site

Excellent links--thanks for sharing!

If you haven't already, and you're local, take on spin on MLK around the I-71 corridor and Reading Road. A massive undertaking has been spawned by the I-71 interchange that opened Uptown's front door for capital construction projects focused upon research and innovation partnerships with UC, UC Health, and Children's as anchors. Vibrant research universities often have these related facilities in close proximity and now that's happening for UC.

I think this bodes very well for our University's future. But back to the issue at hand, the indoor practice facility will require a big footprint. I'll be surprised if it's not built right on the current outdoor practice/bubble space. Could UC's lacrosse home field be an indoor facility? We may soon find out.

John Cunningham’s latest blog entry “Clifton Notes” addresses the locker room and long term vision

https://gobearcats.com/news/2021/1/14/cl...-year.aspx