Categories
Arts & Entertainment News

Experience the 2010 FIFA World Cup on Fountain Square

Fountain Square will serve as THE spot to catch all of your World Cup action as the United States enters with one of its most promising teams in recent memory. The United States will take on the third-ranked team in the world, and long-time rival, England on Saturday, June 12 from 1:30pm to 5pm in Rustenburg, South Africa.

The United States team finished first in the 2010 Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) World Cup Qualifier just ahead of Mexico. The United States/England rivalry is especially interesting as the 1950 England vs. United States game was one of the most shocking upsets in soccer history.  The U.S. defeated England in Brazil 1-0 thanks to a stunning header in the 37th Minute. Since that time the game has been called the “Miracle on Grass” and has caused much controversy and tension between the two squads.

The Fountain Square Management Group states that Coca-Cola products and adult beverages will be available for purchase while you watch the game on Fountain Square’s giant video board.

Fountain Square will continue to be the central gathering space for soccer fans throughout the World Cup as the management group has stated that all FIFA games will be shown unless there is a conflict with an event on the Square or a Reds baseball game.

The World Cup will conclude on Sunday, July 11, and to celebrate Fountain Square will be hosting a foosball tournament before and after the championship World Cup game. There will also be live music from 7pm to 9pm, international foods, import and domestic beer and other special features.

Those interested in participating in the double-elimination, two-player per side foosball tournament are encouraged to pre-register online, but organizers note that walk-up registration will be available on July 11th from 11am to 11:30am. Team registration costs $5 and the tournament champion will win $250 with smaller prizes being awarded throughout the tournament. Competitors must be 18 years of age or older.

Categories
Arts & Entertainment News Transportation

Hundreds of cyclists to take part in 4th Annual Ride Cincinnati event

Nearly 1,000 bicyclists will take to the streets on Sunday, June 13 to raise money for local breast cancer research conducted at the University of Cincinnati’s Barrett Cancer Institute as part of the 4th Annual Ride Cincinnati event. The bicycle ride ranges from 8.2 miles to 62.8 miles depending on the ability and desire of the participants.

Yeatman’s Cove at Sawyer Point, on Cincinnati’s central riverfront, serves as the starting point for all of the courses. From there bicyclists will cross the Ohio River on the Purple People Bridge, ride throughout Northern Kentucky and return to Sawyer Point for the finish and celebration. The first group will depart at 6:30am on the 62.8-mile ride, while the last group is scheduled to leave at 9am on the 8.2-mile ride.

Ride Cincinnati has successfully raised more than $500,000 for breast cancer research in its first three years. This year, event organizers hope to increase the size of the event and the total money raised. So far, more than $204,000 has been raised, with 981 participants. Online registration is currently closed, but late registration is still open at several locations throughout the city and even on the day of the event.  A full list of the late registration locations is available online, and donations are being accepted through Wednesday, June 30.

The post-ride celebration will take place at Sawyer Point (map) from 9:30am to 1pm for registered riders and their families.

Categories
Business News Politics

Quinlivan proposes three city-owned food truck locations in downtown Cincinnati

Photo by Bob Schwartz

Since UrbanCincy first covered the news of Cincinnati’s first food truck (Cafe de Wheels) in December, Senor Roy’s Taco Patrol has started operations and been wildly popular. Meanwhile, Taco Azul is poised to start its authentic Mexican food truck operations later this summer, and Gold Star Chili has announced the formal creation of their ‘Chilimobile’ that will serve Cincinnati-style chili throughout downtown and at other special events. The early success of these mobile food mavens should not come as a surprise given the popularity of food trucks nationally.

Policy makers at City Hall are now catching on and looking to help address the issues currently facing mobile food trucks as it relates to where they can and can not set up operations. Cincinnati City Council member Laure Quinlivan has proposed three city-owned “mobile food vendor” locations in downtown Cincinnati that would provide available spaces for these food trucks on downtown Cincinnati’s crowded streets.

“I want to increase the vitality of our street life and spread activity from Fountain Square to other parts of downtown,” Quinlivan stated in a press release sent to UrbanCincy. “I think giving mobile food vendors a few key areas to do business will help accomplish that. This is also an avenue for talented chefs to start a small business.”

The ability for aspiring chefs to take their product to the street allows them to avoid the costly overhead of an actual location where they are paying utilities and a lease for 24 hours of operation. At the same time, the small business owners are unable to move about to find their best customer base. Customers, on the other hand, love the laid back approach and flexibility of food trucks to be where the action is.

Since December, Cafe de Wheels has been found in downtown Cincinnati for the lunch crowd, Over-the-Rhine for Final Friday and other events, Northside for the after-hours crowd, and at special gatherings like WatchThis and other parties. Senor Roys, meanwhile, can pretty much be found everywhere and anywhere – you need to keep a close watch to their Twitter account to stay up-to-speed. And when Taco Azul starts its operations you can expect a more steady location pattern for lunch and special events.

Photo by Thadd Fiala

The problem thus far has not been too much oversight by City Hall on the topic of mobile food trucks, but rather, the lack of any real discussion whatsoever. This has left food truck operators to fend for themselves with vague public policy and inconsistent agreements with private property owners.

Quinlivan’s proposed pilot program has been reviewed by City administrators from six different City departments, and will be discussed at City Council’s Quality of Life Committee meeting Tuesday, June 8 at 12pm at City Hall (map). Quinlivan has the hopes to pass the legislation before City Council goes on summer recess.  Free bicycle parking is available, and City Hall is served by Metro bus service (plan your trip).

Cafe de Wheels’ owner Thomas Acito is scheduled to speak at the committee meeting on behalf of the Cincinnati Food Truck Alliance.

Stay up-to-date on all of Cincinnati’s mobile food operations by following UrbanCincy’s comprehensive Twitter list.

Categories
Development News Transportation

Cincinnati installs new bicycle racks inside Fountain Square Garage

Photo by Thadd Fiala

As part of Cincinnati’s commitment to improving the city’s bicycling community, the City has installed a new mounted bicycle rack inside of the Fountain Square Parking Garage in downtown Cincinnati. The bicycle rack is the first of what will be a wave of new bicycle parking facilities inside existing City-owned garages.

In February, Cincinnati’s Planning Commission approved a bicycle parking ordinance that will require all new or expanded parking garages to provide bicycle parking. The ordinance would specifically require that one bicycle parking space be provided for every 20 motor vehicle spaces. The ratio is comparable to those found in other cities like Portland, New York City, Charlotte, San Francisco, Kansas City and Denver which have all recently implemented similar ordinances.

The Fountain Square Parking Garage currently holds 635 parking spaces for automobiles which would mean should it be constructed today, the garage would be required to provide 24 bicycle parking spaces due to the 24-space cap included in the new ordinance for large parking garages. The new bicycle parking ordinance is the first of its kind in the region and is intended to tackle the problem of a lack of secured, covered bicycle parking spaces in Cincinnati’s center city.

The new rack inside the Fountain Square Parking Garage holds 12 bicycles, cost approximately $1,400 and was paid for through the City’s existing Bicycle Transportation Program. Officials from the City’s Department of Transportation & Engineering say that preliminary discussions are underway to incorporate more of these racks in other City-owned garages, but that public feedback would be helpful as officials determine where to locate them next.

Please share your thoughts on where the City should install these bicycle racks next in the comment section below, by filling out a form on the City’s website, or by calling (513) 591-6000.


View City-Owned Parking Garages in a larger map

Categories
News Politics Transportation

Enquirer failing to educate Cincinnatians on streetcar issue

P. Casey Coston lives in North Avondale and works as an attorney.  This op-ed piece was written for UrbanCincy as a follow-up to his op-ed piece that ran in the Enquirer on May 28, 2010.

Last week, the Enquirer trumpeted a privately commissioned poll with a headline screaming “Poll: Most Oppose Streetcars—Enquirer Survey Shows 2:1 Against $128 Million Project.” For anyone who made even a cursory reading of the polling data, the headline was patently misleading. Not unexpectedly, the Enquirer’s curious and novel attempt at polling the public with regard to capital infrastructure projects gave birth to a maelstrom of criticism, both in the general public as well as an overheated blogosphere, all of which left the reeling local paper of record with some serious s’plaining to do. The scrambling attempts at damage control, including a tail-grabbing attempt at the Twitter-tiger, ultimately concluded in a somewhat tepid mea culpa in Wednesday’s Enquirer editorial, as streetcar proponents and local bloggers galvanized in an energetically empowered voice of protest.

Indeed, in analyzing the polling data, one could pretty much go in the exact opposite direction of the Enquirer headlines, leading to any number of pro-streetcar conclusions. For example, as demonstrated by an analysis in the excellent CincyStreetcar blog,  a more apt and stirring headline would have been “According To Enquirer Poll, Cincinnati Streetcar Will Earn In Excess of $20 Million Profit Annually.” This was based on the number of poll respondents who stated they would ride the streetcar, when calculated on an annualized basis, taking into account the farebox revenues and operating costs.

The source of the outcry was both the erroneous spin that the headlines trumpeted, when coupled with a second, insult-to-wrongful-injury article indicating the poll “buoyed streetcar opponents.” For this, the Enquirer speed-dialed the eminently quoteworthy ex-Councilman and ex-Congressman Tom Luken, whom the Enquirer reflexively runs to as a source of “Loyal Opposition” to the streetcar project. A note about Mr. Luken. I have debated him regarding the streetcar on the steps of City Hall. I have sat next to him as we gave testimony at numerous hearings on the streetcar. I am certain that, over the years, he has served his constituents loyally, competently and to the best of his abilities. But let’s be honest folks, to be painfully candid, Mr. Luken’s arguments have been incoherent at best, and “distortions of the truth” (to put it mildly) at worst. He has continually stated blatant misrepresentations when arguing against the streetcar (“it will cost $2, maybe 3 billion,” when, actually, the first phase is $128 million). Nevertheless, he seems to have carte blanche and remains unchallenged in the eyes of the Enquirer reporters.

Simply stated, Mr. Luken, albeit both folksy and apparently, in some circles, beloved, is not a credible advocate, and to continually give him a megaphone with which to project his unchallenged and ill-informed views is a disservice to reasoned debate. At the last City Council, Mr. Luken derided streetcar supporters to anyone who would listen, branding the 29 citizens who spoke in support (versus two, including Luken, against) as the “children’s brigade.” When I challenged him on this, noting that the supporters ranged from ages 17 to 77, he accused me of “profiteering” off the project. When I suggested that some of them were recent college graduates or soon-to be grads who we would like to retain in the city, he snorted, on multiple occasions, “let ‘em go. We don’t need them here.” All of this conversation was within ready earshot of the Enquirer reporter. Where was that quote in the next day’s paper?

Nobody is asking the Enquirer to blindly embrace the streetcars—hard questions should be posed–although balanced coverage wouldn’t be too much to ask. For example, hard questions should also be asked of Mr. Luken. What empirically proven solution does he propose instead to grow our city’s tax base and revenues? Does he really want college graduates to leave Cincinnati and not return? Where does the $3 billion cost he cited for streetcars come from? Does he feel we should vote on this? Should we vote on the Brent Spence Bridge? How about the Waldvogel Viaduct? How about new curb cuts in my neighborhood?

Last Wednesday, in a classic “wag the dog” scenario, on the same day as an excellent CityBeat expose by Kevin Osborne, the Enquirer published its mea (kinda) culpa editorial, replete with a raft of pro-streetcar letters meant to mollify conspiracy-minded streetcar supporters (while at the same time running an editorial demeaning the proponent’s cause as bordering on zealotry). In so doing, the paper did not really admit any bias or wrongdoing, but rather nobly seized the mantle of supposed “objective” oversight. Explaining further, the Enquirer intoned that it was not opposed to the streetcar per se, but merely there to ask the “serious questions.” Additionally, the Enquirer concluded, any complaints about the incongruous polling results should be laid directly at the city’s feet, as streetcar proponents at City Hall have not “communicated a vision for the streetcar’s purpose and promise strongly or clearly enough to the larger community.”

Oh please. Such a transparent and easy dodge is patently disingenuous. The city has put out videos, press conferences, reports upon reports. The city has an elaborate and informative website full of data, links and related information (a site which, I might add, would answer/rebut virtually all of the anti-streetcar comments spewed by the Enquirer comments board klavern on a daily basis). The city even trundled a dog and pony show around town, holding a series of open houses in various neighborhoods in order to further educate the public (even if the “larger community” didn’t care enough to turn out).

What has the Enquirer done to educate the “larger community”? Quoting Tom Luken repeatedly as some solemn voice of reason, while at times entertaining, doesn’t count. Obviously, the Enquirer could do a lot more to get a balanced message out if it really wanted. Not pro or against, but basic information that would allow rational, sentient beings to make an informed decision. The paper actually did just that last Fall in the Forum coverage prior to the Issue 9 election, with a mostly excellent and informative selection of articles. But far and away the coverage of choice since then seems to be hit pieces, bereft of substantive content, which instead give us rambling rhetoric from Granpa Luken with zero in the way of a counter from the other side, all while posturing and cloaking it in their noble goal of simply asking the, tsk tsk, “hard questions.” Seriously…when has the Enquirer ever asked “serious questions” of the opponents? Streetcar opponents get away with absolute flat out lies, and when has the Enquirer ever asked a “hard question” of them?

It is clear from the bulk of the letters to the editor (last Wednesday’s manufactured showing notwithstanding), as well the downright frightening online comments, that the majority of the Enquirer’s readers are woefully ignorant about the streetcar proposal. The fact that the streetcar is a proven tool for re-energizing the urban core, in the process connecting our city’s two largest employment centers, promoting development and expanding the tax base via increased revenues and residents, is lost on a large chunk of its readership. Instead letters and commenters talk about a “choo choo trolley to nowhere,” the “homeless trolley” or a “jail train.” Such comments, while exposing the author’s ignorance, also hint at some of the more naked and ugly prejudices that lie beneath. If the comments are any example of the message the Enquirer is communicating, then it looks like they might want to re-think that message.

Moreover, the Enquirer has the temerity to criticize streetcar supporters for not “communicating” better? The poll represented some incredibly positive news, seismic shifts even, with regard to the streetcar and its prospects. But it’s difficult to get that message out when you’re pushing an engine-less Skoda streetcar up Sycamore with Tom Luken and Margaret Buchanan on the roof shouting at you with bullhorns to turn around and shut it down. Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.

If the Enquirer is so interested in “educating” the “larger community” on this issue, maybe they should be a bit more pro-active…devote a column a week to a pro/con. The uproar and about face this week proved that alternative news sources can and should be heard. Monopolistic in business is not monotheistic in beliefs, and not everyone in this town needs to genuflect at the altar of the almighty Enquirer. Perhaps let a streetcar blogger be part of the co-opted realm of the (seemingly) Enquirer-subsumed local blogosphere.

Bottom line–it is disingenuous to say “you’re not doing enough to get the message out there,” and then thwart that very message at every turn.

Sorry Enquirer. Not good enough.