After losing at the ballot box, the Astrodome appears to be on life support as pressure mounts to tear down the vacant engineering and architectural marvel. To some this is representative of the ongoing preservation battle being waged on behalf of modernist architecture. To other’s it is purely economics. Should we, as a people, be working to preserve objects from the modernist movement, and how exactly does the iconic Astrodome fit into that equation? More from NextCity:
Has the nation made the Astrodome into a powerful and motivating symbol of modernism’s plight? No, but that actually shows a positive acceptance of the style. Few media reports of the referendum this week even discussed the building’s style, let alone the usual quibbling over appreciation of modern design. Reporters quoted voters more concerned about the cost of the proposed renovation. The vote went down peacefully, without much of the palpable outcry that led to the recent preservation victory for Hilario Candela’s Miami Marine Stadium.
[…]
Until its closure in 1999, the Astrodome was the broadcast setting to mainstream sporting events, concerts and oddities like daredevil Evil Knievel’s jump over 13 cars in 1971 and Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King’s tennis match (the “Battle of the Sexes”) in 1973. Most recently, the mighty structure seared itself into the epic and unresolved recovery narrative of Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of refugee Americans made the Astrodome into a camp in 2005, turning the stadium into a panopticon of despair.
This past Wednesday we collaborated with the Niehoff Studio to host our first Urbanists Council Candidates Forum. The event drew a large group of young professionals and university students as 10 City Council candidates answered several questions about urban design, immigration, transportation and land use policy.
The first question outside of general introductions involved the candidates stance on immigration and what the city could do to attract new populations. These issues had been discussed before in our podcast on immigration. In general the candidates deferred to national policy including the immigration however some candidates pushed for an effort to increase bilingual signage.
The second question asked candidates about updating the regional mass transit plan. The plan, commonly known as MetroMoves, went to a vote in 2002 for funding through a sales tax increase. The tax failed that year and plans moved forward for the streetcar portion of the plan since the tax was widely supported within the city limits.
Video by Andrew Stalhke for UrbanCincy and Niehoff Urban Studio.
Candidates took the opportunity to use the question to elaborate on their positions regarding the streetcar. Candidate Greg Landsman (D) reiterated his views on the streetcar from the op-ed published on UrbanCincy a few months ago, and mentioned that both an extension of the streetcar and the implementation of a regional transit system will require support from the private sector. P.G. Sittenfeld (D) said he would support a larger plan than the current system being constructed.
Candidate Melissa Wegman (R) responded by calling for more road connections to the west side and better highways. Councilmember Laure Quinlivan (D), meanwhile, called for the development of a comprehensive multi-modal system that includes more bicycle infrastructure.
The remaining candidates were asked about upgrading Union Terminal for inter-city passenger rail service. Councilman Wendell Young (D) provided a very in-depth response citing the conditions of the terminal and the freight companies that would need to be engaged in the discussion.
Three audience members also asked questions ranging from metro government, public safety to developing a sense of community.
Attendees said they came away feeling more informed about making decisions about candidates.
“I’m encouraged that public transportation has become a pivotal point for a lot of the candidates and I am encouraged by a lot of their answers,” AJ Knee, a UC student pursuing his Masters Degree with the School of Planning told UrbanCincy, “It was very helpful to have this kind of community engagement.”
It has long been a priority of UrbanCincy to better engage young people in the public policy discussions affecting their future. The large, predominately young turnout in Corryville is evidence that young people are becoming increasingly involved. For the 10 candidates that participated in our first Urbanist Council Candidates Forum last week, let’s hope your message resonated with those young urbanist voters.
On October 26, rail transportation advocacy group All Aboard Ohio hosted their fall meeting in Cincinnati. Members came from across the state, and other states including West Virginia and Iowa, to see how the construction of the Cincinnati Streetcar is progressing.
Members were able to ask questions of Paul Grether, Metro’s Director of Rail Operations, who was leading the walking tour. Grether answered many technical questions relating to the streetcar’s rail gauge, power system and the light rail vehicles. He also addressed many of the urban legends that still surround the project — yes, our streetcars will be capable of climbing the steep Vine Street hill.
Streetcar advocate John Schneider also gave a presentation on the history of the project and the many political hurdles supporters have had to overcome. He explained one of his most effective methods of promoting the project: taking skeptics to visit one of the modern streetcar systems currently operating in the United States.
Schneider went on to say that a number of local leaders, including former Hamilton County Sheriff Simon Leis (R), became supporters of the project after seeing the benefits of modern streetcars in person.
Late October was a good time for the group to visit, as construction was highly visible around Over-the-Rhine.
On Elm Street, various phases of work stretched approximately one half mile, from 12th Street to Elder Street. The first rail was installed near Washington Park on October 16, and crews started pouring concrete and shaping the track bed on October 25. Utility work is also taking place on Race and 12th streets in advance of track work.
The project is on schedule, and track work on Elm Street (from 12th Street to Henry Street) is expected to be completed by January 9, 2014.
All photos by Travis Estell for UrbanCincy. Click any photo to view larger size.
Hopefully you are ready to learn all about support structures and geothermal, because the latest video update for the $120 million Smale Riverfront Park goes into great detail about both topics. It also reveals some new information about upcoming features at the park.
The first half of the 13:30 video focuses on the intricate details involved with some of the most mundane work taking place at the site. Project manager Dave Prather does a good job, however, at illustrating just how important that work is.
The more intriguing pieces of information are saved for the second half of the video. During that portion, Prather reveals details about the fog feature at the Heekin/PNC Grow Up Great Adventure Playground, which is scheduled to open to the public in spring 2014.
Prather also discusses that the Cincinnati Park Board has control of the anchorage under the John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge. Dating back to the Civil War, the inner structure, he says, will be opened to the public in some way. Details have not yet been finalized for how they will utilize the area, which is in the flood plane, but Prather expects to be able to make an announcement in time for the next video update.
City and park officials aim to complete the 45-acre central riverfront park by mid-2017, assuming all remaining financing falls into place.
The stretch of Ludlow Avenue from Whitfield Avenue to the west to Ormond Avenue to the east has a decidedly suburban form different from the rest of the gaslight district between Ormond Avenue and Clifton Avenue. This western stretch is part of a two-block commercial main street that is arguably the “most complete neighborhood commercial district in the city,” according to Aaron Renn.
Just being a commercial main street, however, has not been enough to preserve the pedestrian-oriented nature of the street for the entire western half of the district on the south side of Ludlow, and a key gap on the north side of Ludlow at Ormond.
The southern stretch could be described as the Clifton financial district. Between Whitfield and the CVS are three banks – US Bank, PNC and Columbia Savings Bank – all with their own independent access and parking lots surrounding the buildings.
Looking East
Bank and CVS parking and access, notice the loss of onstreet spaces compared to north side of street
Columbia Savings Bank
PNC (left) and US Bank
North side of Ludlow at Ormond
North side of Ludlow at Ormond
The oddity is not that banks have their own access and parking, but that you have auto-oriented suburban development on a historic commercial main street. This is not a unique problem, but a pedestrian streets ordinance, perhaps modeled after Chicago’s, could help correct faulty land use decisions like this one.
The theory behind such an ordinance is that you have an A and B street hierarchy, with A streets having a high standard of spatial definition and pedestrian interest in a continuous network, and B streets having lower standards for parking lots, drive-thru’s, muffler shops, etc.
This is a neoliberal approach typical of New Urbanism, It compromises for many areas and gives businesses a design choice based on location: a pedestrian main street (A), or an auto-oriented B street.
Chicago’s pedestrian streets ordinance seeks “to preserve and enhance the character of streets and intersections that are widely recognized as Chicago’s best examples of pedestrian-oriented shopping districts. The regulations are intended to promote transit, economic vitality and pedestrian safety and comfort.”
The ordinance then sets the criteria for the pedestrian street designation, lists all street segments within the city that have been deemed pedestrian streets subject to the ordinance, and sets standards for build-to lines, transparency and pedestrian access.
Of particular importance is what it says about parking and driveways:
Parking Location. All off-street parking spaces must be enclosed or located to the rear of the principal building and not be visible from the right-of-way of a pedestrian street.
Driveways and Vehicle Access. Vehicle access to lots located along pedestrian streets must come from an alley. No curb cuts or driveways are allowed from a pedestrian street.
If this the stretch of Ludlow Avenue had a pedestrian streets ordinance, at such time these banks wish to make improvements or redevelopment, these standards would then kick in and require the banks to reconsider their vehicular access, possibly to the point of eliminating driveways and consolidating parking and access off Whitfield.
More realistically, however, the ordinance would help guard other commercial main streets from the auto-oriented nature of drug stores, banks and restaurants without the need for a short-term Interim Development Controls (IDC) district or historic district protections.
