Printable View
Seems like it will look prety nice when it's done, but closing the gagrage in the middle of town for a year and moving such events as the tree lighting and oktoberfest ... along with the traffic hassels may anger more than a few people.
FOUNTAIN SQUARE PROJECT
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ May 31, 2005 10:13 AM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>
It's a stupid idea.
It's an intelligent idea.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ May 31, 2005 10:59 PM: Message edited by: d_squared ]</font>
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ May 31, 2005 10:57 PM: Message edited by: d_squared ]</font>
hmmmm...could be stupid, could be brilliant.
I just don't see why everything has to be new. The square is only 30 years old. Will the new one only last 30 years? Why can't things be designed with some vision and foresight so they last a lifetime? Avg human life is ~70 years.
Where is the history? Heck, with everything new, there is no history...oh, so then we build a NEW museum to house the history...the history should be all around us...not stored somewhere!
Why not take the 30-40 mil and build a new city center in a place that really needs some life? Fountain square should be left alone or minimally restored.
And the skeptic in me doubts the parking fees will only increase by $1. I suspect that will be $1/hr additional or more when it is all said and done.
The current generation just wants to tear things down and build new or use vacant ground to build new. I wonder how much longer until we tear down cap'n and gae's houses to make way for bigger and better? Or is it newer and more yuppy? I just don't get it! [img]confused.gif[/img]
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ May 31, 2005 10:56 PM: Message edited by: d_squared ]</font>
It does look like it's going to be much nicer when completed. They want Fountain Square to be the focal point of the city again, but in all honesty, the problem isnt the current design. The problem is that it's not used enough to begin with. They could use that stage so much more, especially during the summer months. So, I guess what I'm getting at is, that this makes sense as long as they use it to it's potential once completed. The parking headaches might be cured with shuttles for people who will have to park much further from work while this is going on.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The most important feature is not new: the fountain.Quote:
I just don't see why everything has to be new.
Some of the design features are improvements and long over due.
For example, from 5th Street, one can only access the square from the corners and a mostly unused bridge that extends from the Westin. The rest is blocked by benches that serve as a wall facing 5th Street.
The new plan will allow pedestrian traffic on both sides of the street by having sidewalks directly connected to the plaza. The Vine Street side is similar in that access is blocked by a wall. This will all change with the redevelopment.
It is a good thing.
The stage looks like it is a place for public hangings more than a place for entertainment or public speeches.
Thank God it is coming down.
Gonna change quite a few lunch hours as well. A ton of people eat on the square. Especially when it's really nice out.
It's a mighty fine place for a chicken dance [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
What's the life expectancy of the new square? 10 years? 20 years? no clue? (most obvious answer)
I won't support it unless they predict it will last for 50+ years...means they have to design it with that concept in mind...which is way too much for most people...especially the developers.
It will still be a ghost town on the weekends!
If you want to draw people downtown, create more recreational areas...not places for people to sit, eat and get fat! Sedentary people don't want to move around...and WON'T...no matter what you build. Active people will go where there is something to DO...and most of them chose to leave this city...esp those 25-35 years old... according to the last study I read.
I think they did mention it being a 50 year thing.
By the way, how's jumper doing?
He hasnt been on here for a while.
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
I am glad to hear they mentioned a time span!
Jumper is doing good. He is working his tail off...which is why he hasn't been on the board much...and he isn't sitting at a computer all day either....which has its pluses and minuses.
This is a stupid comment:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I sincerely doubt either of those comments. Have the Reds or the Bengals come to the square for "meet & greet" nights - that will bring people downtown.Quote:
...Mayor Charlie Luken said it would help attract people downtown.
It also would ultimately help lure more companies and jobs to the city, he said.
"I think if you make this happen, you're going to make people want to come here," he said.
Isn't this reverse discrimination?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Quote:
With an eye toward those concerned about participation from minority companies, the development group said it is close to a deal with Megen Construction, a minority-owned firm in Forest Park, to become construction manager.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interestingly, when the square was last renovated (late 60's early 70's?), it was considered a model in urban revitalization, and I believe it won awards.Quote:
Originally posted by d_squared:
What's the life expectancy of the new square? 10 years? 20 years? no clue? (most obvious answer)
I won't support it unless they predict it will last for 50+ years...means they have to design it with that concept in mind...which is way too much for most people...especially the developers.
It will still be a ghost town on the weekends!
If you want to draw people downtown, create more recreational areas...not places for people to sit, eat and get fat! Sedentary people don't want to move around...and WON'T...no matter what you build. Active people will go where there is something to DO...and most of them chose to leave this city...esp those 25-35 years old... according to the last study I read.
I do agree that the design should be made with durability in mind; one that should stand the test of time.
The reason I think the changes enhance the chances of passsing the test is because it attempts to increase usability. Making the square more accessible from the street is one way to do it. Removing the skywalk on the north end and the "tunnel" it creates, makes for a better environment for outdoor dining and pedestrians. Ringing the square with activity and colorful awnings (as opposed to closed-blinded windows for a banking security office) can only enhance activity.
Also: Am I the only one who thinks all that gray cobblestone on the plaza must go? Seems like more color would liven things up.
For those who resist change, may I remind you what the Fountain Square was before they renovated it 35 years ago? An island in the middle of Fifth Street.
I do question moving the fountain. Currently, it is prominently featured as one comes down Fifth Street. That will no longer be the case if they move it as proposed.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know it's funny that you say this. With all the hullaballoo over Newport on the Levee, I've long argued that the incredible riverfront park we have serves that very purpose, yet people bitch bitch bitch that everything is on the Kentucky side. When the final piece - the proposed park on the central riverfront - comes to fruition, there will be 2 miles of riverfront park to serve the less sedentary among us.Quote:
If you want to draw people downtown, create more recreational areas...not places for people to sit, eat and get fat! Sedentary people don't want to move around...and WON'T...no matter what you build. Active people will go where there is something to DO...and most of them chose to leave this city...esp those 25-35 years old... according to the last study I read.
Cincinnati and Hamilton County has one of the best park systems in the country, hands down, and ranks very high in recreational acreage per capita. It was even mentioned in a US News ranking sometime in the last year. I guess the point is that there is no shortage of recreational spaces in the metro area, yet that hasn't stopped young people from leaving. The gripe always seems to be that we don't have more Newport on the Levees.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Captain whizbang about the park system. We do have one of the best in the nation. (unfortunate that we agreed about something, I really do dig our park system) The truth is that they are going forward with the riverfront park as well. I guess this is the next step in the so called "revitalization of downtown".
Main probelm right now is that no-one stays downtown. Many people go elsewhere before and after games, meaning covongton, newport or closer to home.
When you consider that there are at least 81 home baseball games and 10 home football games (counting preseason) almost 25% of the callender year has a pro sporting event on our riverfront. Toss in anything at the Colesium and other shows and events on the riverfront, and that number goes up into the 1 third of the year category.
That's a ton of business that I'm sure the business owners accross the river are very grateful for.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ June 06, 2005 11:11 AM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>