Category: Opinion

Categories
Development Opinion

OPINION – To Grow or Not to Grow? Hyde Park Square vote crucial test for Cincinnati’s Future


This week, City Council is poised to vote on a proposed $150 million investment that would replace a one-story building and a sea of surface parking lots with a 150-unit apartment building, 75-room hotel, and 300-space parking garage on Hyde Park Square. Now, after
months of controversy and accusations of a “Manhattanization” of Hyde Park, a simple question lies before City Council that will decide this project’s fate: will Cincinnati grow or are we content with death by stagnation? Will we embrace growth, or will “housing for thee, just not next to me” prevail as a precedent in Cincinnati?

Counterpoints

There are several points of contention that the Save Hyde Park group and others have raised about the development including pedestrian safety, neighborhood character, and the affordability of housing. These talking points are at best misguided and at worst fallacies; here’s why:

Pedestrian Safety and Traffic

Pedestrian safety is an issue of paramount importance to the health of Cincinnati, so when someone raises this concern, I listen. However, when this issue is raised as a point in opposition to development, it fails to understand that additional density increases the walkability
of a neighborhood. When people are spread out, they are forced to drive to their destination. By increasing the residents and business living on the Square, the city is increasing pedestrian activity. To put it simply: opposing development is the antithesis to pedestrian safety. Moreover, 17.9% of Cincinnatians don’t own a car, and a 2017 study – individuals living in multi-family buildings drive 20.6% less than their Single-Family counterparts. So, when the city builds dense housing near key business districts, we are increasing opportunities for folks who do not own cars.

Neighborhood Character

The proposed project will be 85 feet after setbacks and 65 feet tall at Hyde Park Square– consistent with several of the buildings in the square. A quick scan of the neighborhood would prove that it’s not “just too big”. The A L’aise building also sits at 65 feet at Hyde Park Square. Michigan Terrace stands at 79 feet tall on the northern part of the square after setbacks. Moreover, other condominium towers in the neighborhood at Madison House and the Regency sit at 15 and 20 stories in height respectively– towering over this proposal. The vibrancy of Hyde Park Square is essential to the character of the Hyde Park community, and the viability of the square is dependent on having enough foot traffic to support the businesses. Unfortunately, Hyde Park has only added 53 net housing units between 2023-25. The decades’ lack of investment in net new housing throughout the neighborhood and around the Square caused both population loss and lessened the capacity for the Square to serve the neighborhood. Since 1970, Hyde Park has lost 3,000 residents, and since 2002, Hyde Park Square has seen a 16% drop in employment. A neighborhood with a declining population, facing competition for customers from other emerging areas in the region, and inflated costs of running businesses and restaurants can and will create a situation where the beating heart of a neighborhood will beat less and less. This development is essential to the preserving and enhancing character of the neighborhood.

Affordable Housing Shortage


We cannot afford stagnation when we are amidst a housing shortage that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is the top driver of inflation. Neighborhoods and cities need to be constantly evolving to meet the demands of today, and there is a bias in community councils to preserve as-is. Adding 150 units of housing in the beating heart of a high demand neighborhood helps to ease these inflationary pressures, especially in a place like Hyde Park, which has seen little multi-family development in the past 40 years. At first glance, a boutique hotel may not help with housing affordability, however, providing out of town visitors hotel rooms frees up housing units that would otherwise be rented as Airbnb’s and short-term rentals. Moreover, by making this a truly mixed-use project with the addition of the hotel makes a project that is bringing desperately needed housing to the city financially viable.

The Stakes of a Future Cincinnati

This is a critical vote in the history of our city. If Council does not approve this project, the consequences will be drastic. Neighborhoods should be allowed to garner input on their future, but their concerns ought to be tempered by the dire need for housing at a city-wide level. Hyde Park Square is an important neighborhood business district in the city. Letting a surface parking lot and one-story building sit for years has and will continue to negatively affect the viability of the Square. Neighborhood level veto power of development leads to a compounding housing shortage that is insurmountable. Cincinnati cannot just have a strong downtown–we need strong, resilient neighborhoods. Without both, the city we love will become unrecognizable and unlivable. Decisions need to be made by elected leaders, experts in planning and development, and yes with community input. Only considering community input in development
is the wrong lens to view the city–even a city of neighborhoods. A no vote will cause a fully unbalanced decision-making tree. Elevating community input from community councils, who are often unrepresentative of the neighborhood as a whole, above the needs of the city as whole would impair the ability of the City of Cincinnati to solve its housing crisis, grow, and function as a municipality. That is the dire precedent a no vote would set: a precedent that puts the desires of the few above the needs of the many; a Cincinnati with no clear direction functioning with countless microstates; an untenable solution for our future. For the greater good of our city, Council must vote yes on the planned development this week. Juncta Juvant.

Categories
Opinion Transportation

Don’t we all need sidewalks?

Cincinnati’s Department of Public Services (DPS) recently released their Snow Removal Plan for this year, and I am disappointed yet unsurprised to see the measly half-page describing the City’s snow removal plan for sidewalks: In short, there is no plan.

The City’s sidewalk snow removal plan, a half-page describing property owner liability.

City officials tout the fact that nearly 30% of Cincinnati households do not have a car to back their dream of building a truly connected city, but when it comes to reality, we continue to prioritize cars, not people. 

The reality is that removing snow from sidewalks does not benefit just 30% of people, it benefits 100% of us. We all use the sidewalk. If you have kids, you probably drop them off at a curbside and watch them walk down a sidewalk to their school building. If you go for an outing downtown, you will certainly need the sidewalk to get to your shop, restaurant, or bar. If you use a wheelchair, you need the sidewalk for your daily life. Sidewalks aren’t (only) a means to equity, they are a means for people.

The way we choose to operate a city is a matter of values. Do we truly value connected communities by providing a means of face-to-face interactions in a neighborhood? Do we value public health by prioritizing the people who choose to walk as a component of an active lifestyle? The blocked up sidewalk from the snow plow tells me no.

Categories
Opinion Transportation

Redefined Over-the-Rhine Intersection Prioritizes Pedestrians

The following is a guest post by Indianapolis based planner Jeffrey Tomkins with a forward from Micah Paldino, Clifton Heights resident, and founder of creative storytelling agency, Fallon Thatcher. It has been edited lightly.

“With the area in and around Findlay Market expanding with new restaurants, bars, and lifestyle concepts, the neighborhood is primed and ready for a conversation around how we provide a safer and more beautiful experience.

This is timed nicely with ongoing construction of FC’s stadium set to open in March 2021 that will bring even more focus on how pedestrians utilize this space. Visibility for pedestrians at this important, but rather troubling and cumbersome, intersection has always been a pain point when crossing the street and competing with cars.

In this reconfiguration designed by Jeffery Tompkins it lessens the risk for pedestrians by reducing the allowances of turns and creates a calmer environment. This is something we need more than ever as Over-the-Rhine and Clifton Heights become a more singular unit.”

Micah Paldino
Vine Street and McMicken Avenue today. Photo by John Yung.

The intersection of Vine St. and McMicken St. is one of Cincinnati’s more complicated – and potentially more deadly. While it has been the subject of art, the first search engine result for the five-way intersection lists pedestrian deaths as its biggest story. And this is no surprise: complicated turn radii, low vehicle visibility from a wild angle of incidence, and an antiquated slip lane have created a logistical nightmare for cyclists and pedestrians hoping to cross the intersection.

Current Traffic Circulation

Any design intervention hoping to calm traffic and improve mobility at this nexus should account for the district-wide significance of this crossing and, thus, must think in terms of the relevant traffic flow through Vine and McMicken corridors. As it stands, current traffic flow is overly complicated and caters almost entirely to automobiles rather than encouraging pedestrian interaction.

Seen from this map, the wide turn radii and allowance of multitudinous turning options fosters inhospitable conditions for peds, with several critical points ripe for accidents. On top of decreasing pedestrian safety, this wide array of turns also can negatively impact traffic flow and connectivity between adjacent neighborhoods. To fully reconfigure the intersection to allow for smoother traffic flow and safety, traffic flow of the corridor should be reanalyzed and possibly rerouted.

To allow for a complete-streets redesign of Vine/McMicken, my proposal eliminates left turns from McMicken onto Vine and removes right turns from Vine onto McMicken. North-bound traffic on Vine intending to turn right on McMicken would be rerouted to a new two-way Elder St. allowing for southbound travel. South-bound traffic on Vine intending to turn right on McMicken would instead be rerouted south to a two-way Elder and directed north-ward on a reconfigured two-way Race St. north of the Cincinnati streetcar connector, leaving the slip lane redundant. North-bound traffic from McMicken onto Vine would be routed south from Pace to Elder and then north on Vine. South-bound traffic from McMicken to Vine would instead utilize Elder as a conduit between the two streets. While this reconfiguration could create inconveniences for residents in the near-term, it is with a long-term eye toward saving pedestrian lives that makes it worth it. Atop this, the redesign hopes for slower traffic, improvements in overall traffic flow with elimination of one-ways, and a reduction in accidents.

Corridor Flow Map

Aside from turn-regulation at the intersection, my proposal forVine/McMicken involves the capping of Findlay St. to eliminate the five-way and diminish incidence points. With this reclaimed space from the new configuration and removal of slip lanes, public space would be created, and pedestrian sightlines would be vastly improved at the new four-way intersection. 

Plan View

The new configuration calls for a reduction in vehicular space and the inclusion of multi-modal lanes catering to mid-speed travel (bicycle, scooter, powerchair, etc.) along Vine and McMicken. The reclaimed slip lane at the southeast corner would be reallocated as a public plaza and pedestrian sanctuary protected by bollards and activated by food carts or public art. A 6’ multi-modal lane along McMicken would improve connectivity for bicyclists along the corridor and offer a commuting solution for Over-the-Rhine residents. The 10’ multi-modal lane along Vine would take the place of the current right-turn lane and give a north-bound option for bicycle connectivity. One side of street parking would still be retained north and south of the intersection on both streets. The capped-off Findlay St. would become a possible pick-up and drop-off zone for rideshare and Uber/Lyft.

  • Looking southeast on McMicken Ave
  • Looking northwest on McMicken Ave
  • Looking east from Findlay Street
  • Looking south on Vine Street
  • Looking north on Vine Street
Render views of proposed intersection change. All illustrations by author.

Aside from fostering pedestrian safety and increasing bicycling viability, the redesigned intersection vastly improves overall traffic flow with its reduction in turns. This may offset future rates of accidents. While the reconfiguration would affect bus routes 46 and 78 currently turning from south-bound Vine onto Findlay to get to Race St. SB, the new configuration would allow for bus travel on the newly designated two-way Elder St, with traffic stop bars pushed back to allow for bus travel.

  • Vine Street Circulation
  • McMicken Ave Circulation
  • Street Cross Section
Overview and cross sections. All images by author.

If you would like to have your thoughts and opinions published on UrbanCincy, simply contact us at editors@urbancincy.com.

Categories
Opinion Transportation

CNU’s 2018 Transportation Summit: A New Traffic Model for Brent Spence Project

Planned Brent Spence Bridge Approach

The underlying assumption of the Brent Spence Bridge project is that the level of congestion warrants relief with a new bridge and freeway expansion. The problem of congestion will be solved with new freeway capacity. However, that simple formula does not account for all the costs of the freeway expansion or the benefits not running a freeway through the urban core.

Two important pieces missing from the Brent Spence Bridge project cost/benefit analysis are the value of urban land and induced demand. As noted in a prior article, urban land is valuable. The sustained growth in Over the Rhine is local proof of the national trend that people want to live, work, and play in cities. Proponents of the bridge expansion project assume that the congestion relief is worth the price tag and loss of urban land for the next 50+ years. But what if the congestion relief is ephemeral?

Others in Cincinnati have described induced demand. To reiterate, it is the propensity for freeway lanes to fill to capacity once they are created. New capacity creates new demand. Decreasing the cost of driving with shorter, faster commutes, increases the number of drivers. Road expansions are intended to expand capacity and reduce congestion; however, new freeway capacity quickly fills up and becomes just as congested as before.

There appears to be no upper limit at which enough lanes eliminate capacity. The Katy Freeway in Texas provides the case in point. First constructed in the 1960s, it was six to 8 lanes wide. A $2.8 billion expansion project finished in 2011 that expanded it to one of the widest freeways in North America at 26 lanes: At one segment each direction has 6 lanes of through traffic, 4 feeder lanes, and 3 HOV/toll lanes. Travel times decreased immediately after the expansion, and in 2012 the Katy Freeway was hailed as a success story. However, by 2014, travel times increased 30 percent during the morning commute and 55 percent during the evening commute. $2.8 billion and 18 extra lanes improved traffic for three years, then made it worse than before the project. It achieved congestion relief for less than three years.

The predicted benefits of the Kary Freeway did not last. Cincinnati should learn from that lesson and include the effects of induced demand in the Brent Spence Bridge expansion cost/benefits accounting. The previous design did not adequately analyze induced demand.

Part of the reason that the project did not include induced demand as part of the analysis is that the software used to model traffic volumes is not up to the task. The model, called Static Traffic Assignment (STA), was designed to run on computers from the 1970s. Since you are reading this article on a computer there is no need to explain how much computers have changed in that time. There have been upgrades to the STA software but it retains the same fundamental architecture. STA produces usable predictions for daily traffic volumes but not for peak demand (rush hour). Accurate predictions of peak demand are necessary to understand induced demand.

There are two problems with STA that provide inaccurate peak demand forecasts. First, STA assumes roadway segments are independent, so that a problem in road segment “A” will not impact road segment “B.” In reality, congestion in one road segment does impact adjacent segments. Second, STA allows modeled traffic volumes to exceed capacity. If the model predicts capacity beyond what a given freeway can support, the model will queue vehicles up “outside the model.” In reality, those cars queued “outside the model” are either stuck in traffic or they’ve left the freeway and are taking surface roads to work.

The interstate system is a network that seeks equilibrium. If there is congestion in the network, drivers will avoid it. If there is capacity in the system, drivers will fill it up. The current Brent Spence Bridge project was modeled with STA. STA does not look at the network holistically. It either breaks up the system in segments or moves extra traffic outside the model. The failure to look at the system holistically makes it difficult for STA to predict where induced demand will come from and how intense the demand will be.

A better model now exists to forecast traffic. Called Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA), it is a more sophisticated computer model designed to run on contemporary computers. DTA holistically models an interconnected network in equilibrium. If a bottleneck causes a traffic backup, DTA assumes traffic will divert to surface roads rather than move outside the model.

The 2018 CNU Transportation Summit on Highways to Boulevards featured the presentation of a recent paper on DTA. Overall, DTA is a more powerful modeling tool that can better analyze effects on complex systems. There are five vehicular bridges over the Ohio River in Cincinnati, plus the two I-275 bridges. The traffic model must accommodate the regional impact of the bridge expansion on traffic, including the effects of induced demand. This is doubly important if the Brent Spence Bridge expansion is tolled and other bridges are not.

A DTA model of the Brent Spence bridge project will better show the impact of additional vehicles on local streets. Civic leaders in Cincinnati and Covington should have a better accounting of how moving an additional 50,000 vehicles per day through the urban core will affect their street networks, which must be paid for with city tax dollars.

Would it make sense to spend five years building the expansion project if the congestion relief dissipated within five years? Before moving ahead with such a large and expensive project there must be a full accounting of the costs and benefits. Particularly relevant to CNU, the loss of urban land has not adequately been included in the cost of the project. The benefit of congestion relief is diminished by induced demand. There are new tools at hand to better tally up these costs and benefits. A project the size and scale of the Brent Spence bridge expansion project requires a full and transparent accounting of the costs and benefits to move forward.

This is a guest article by Chris Meyer reporting on the 2018 CNU Transportation Summit. CNU and CNU Midwest are content partners with UrbanCincy. Chris is an Architect at Hub + Weber, PLC

If you would like to have your thoughts and opinions published on UrbanCincy, simply contact us at editors@urbancincy.com.

Categories
Opinion Transportation

CNU’s 2018 Transportation Summit: Lessons for Greater Cincinnati

CNU’s 2018 Transportation Summit was September 16-17 in New Orleans. The purpose of the summit was to bring together people focused on the revitalization of urban neighborhoods disrupted by freeways. In attendance were people from Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Texas, Wisconsin, Washington DC, and two members from CNU Midwest, Chris Meyer and Brian Boland. There were many takeaways from the summit but three lessons seem applicable to Greater Cincinnati.

The first is that freeways and urban fabric are incompatible. Urban fabric in Greater Cincinnati typically consists of fine-grained parcels, 2-5 story buildings, and a dense street with grid pedestrian-scale streetscapes. Urban fabric is fundamentally sized for people. The 19th century blessed present-day Greater Cincinnati with an abundance of high-quality urban fabric. A minor takeaway from the transportation summit was that other cities would be jealous if they knew what we have.

Freeways are scaled for cars and trucks. They are always interruptions in the urban fabric. They break up the street grid wherever they pass through it and form barriers to people passing. The urban fabric for blocks around a freeway is degraded not only by the dirt, noise, smell, and ugliness but also by the profusion of vehicles they concentrate and deliver into the urban fabric. This is true for greater Cincinnati along the I-75, I-71, and I-471 corridors.

Freeways are a necessary part of the urban economy but they are incompatible with the urban fabric. It was a mistake to run them through central cities. Dwight Eisenhower, the father of the interstate system, certainly thought so.

Multiple people at the summit noted that urban freeways are “monuments to racism.” That’s obviously the case in New Orleans. In Cincinnati, the West End neighborhood is physically gone but the Kenyan Barr photo exhibit, currently showing at the University of Cincinnati, illustrates the neighborhood destroyed by I-75. Ninety-seven percent of the residents were black.

A second lesson from the transportation summit is that urban fabric is valuable. Anyone familiar with CNU understands that. What was new is that urban fabric can be more valuable than the freeways running through it. Implicitly or explicitly, a big part of the argument to remove freeways, be it Denver, Oakland, or Austin, is to free up land for profitable new development.

The same principle applies to Cincinnati. The value of land with urban development on it is greater than the same amount of land with auto-centric development on it. The blocks around freeways are almost always taken up with auto-centric development because of how freeway ramps concentrate vehicles in a geographic space. Cincinnati would reap greater economic, tax, and social benefits if the space around Interstate-75 followed urban development patterns rather than auto-centric development patterns.

The third lesson is that the future of urban development doesn’t have to look like the past. When the first Congress for New Urbanism met in 1991, most new development was going to suburbs and central cities were still losing money and population. That has changed. People are moving back to places where they can live, work, and play, without a car. It’s happening in Cincinnati too.

Recognizing the value of urban fabric and the cost of freeways in the urban fabric allows people to recalculate the costs/benefits of future transportation projects. Two high-profile Cincinnati transportation projects include the Cincinnati Bell Connector streetcar and the Brent Spence Bridge expansion.

One argument against the streetcar is that it is not “profitable,” so it should be shut down. However, streetcars are compatible with the urban fabric. Most buildings and parcels on the streetcar route have been improved. Streetlife – outdoor dining, social interaction, economic activity – along the streetcar route is as vital as it’s been for decades. The streetcar is a fellow dancer in the sidewalk ballet. It improves the value of adjacent urban fabric, in opposition to freeways that destroy value. A better cost/benefit analysis of the streetcar would include the increased tax value derived from adjacent improved parcels.

The inverse argument occurs with the Brent Spence Bridge project. The primary cost/benefit evaluation looks at congestion. The potential value of restored urban fabric has never been a part of the bridge’s cost/benefit analysis. When they factored the value of urban fabric into the Fort Washington way redesign, they decided to sink the freeway below grade so it could be capped in the future. It’s easy to envision a redesigned bridge project that includes land for new urban fabric, much as the Fort Washington Way project did.

The 2018 CNU transportation summit brought together thought leaders, local activists, transportation professionals, and city designers. A repeated statement at the 2018 summit was that multi-million dollar infrastructure projects should improve the value of places where they are constructed. In Greater Cincinnati, it seems like the value of place is often not considered in the cost-benefit analysis of large transportation projects.

In the past, it was possible to argue that urban fabric had no value, or that its value was equal to auto-centric development. Those arguments can no longer be made in good faith. If Cincinnati is going to capitalize on the wealth of its urban fabric, the value of that fabric must be included when evaluating future transportation projects. If it’s done so accurately, we should be all the wealthier.

This is a guest article by Chris Meyer reporting on the 2018 CNU Transportation Summit. CNU and CNU Midwest are content partners with UrbanCincy. Chris is an Architect at Hub + Weber, PLC

If you would like to have your thoughts and opinions published on UrbanCincy, simply contact us at editors@urbancincy.com.