Categories
Arts & Entertainment News

As summer starts, city shifts gears from ballet to opera

Summer is often a season of danceable mash-ups and kooky collaborations. (Afterall, who would have imagined Snoop Dogg and Katy Perry hooking-up on a track?) In a partnership slightly less-likely to produce a radio hit, Cincinnati’s finest Fine Arts performance organizations have teamed up, with members of the Cincinnati Ballet dancing in the Cincinnati Opera’s performance of Die Meisteringer von Nurnberg, the lone comedy created by Richard Wagner.

This production opens the 90th Anniversary Season for the Cincinnati Opera, and comes on the heels of a scintillating season finale for the Cincinnati Ballet. Performing The Sammy Project! in early May at the Aronoff Center for the Arts, the Ballet showcased the world premiere of Darrell Grand Moultrie’s The Sammy Project! and a performance of dancemeister Twyla Tharp’s (Nine Sinatra Songs, Broadway’s Movin’ Out) In the Upper Room. The works were prefaced by For Kristi, a biographical work telling the story of company member Kristi Capps and her time with the Cincinnati Ballet; her retirement after that night’s performance would conclude a fourteen-year-long relationship.

Here, I confess that despite an affection for dance, my knowledge doesn’t extend much beyond being able to identify the odd grand jete’. But here, I found, was the show for me. Set to classic Sammy Davis Jr. tunes that oscillated between brassy, buzzing, and sultry, Moultrie’s choreography in The Sammy Project! took his dancers through acrobatic and explosive combinations that did not seem so far removed from mainstream dance television such as So You Think You Can Dance?

With memorable music, jazz-inspired steps, and stylish costumes inspired by the Rat Pack-era — untied bow-ties often straddled male necks with gem-colored shirts and cocktail dresses the rule of thumb, throughout — there seemed an almost palpable exuberance on-stage and in the house. And while restraint may not have been the chief strength of the piece, Moultrie staggered and layered the entrances of his dancers — who very often operated in couples for entire dances — as they joined and subsequently left geometric formations, adding much-needed dynamics with a sort of visual crescendo and diminuendo.

To call the performance a whirlwind would be apt, and while dance-fans of more discerning tastes may have preferred more than token efforts at subtlety — each down-tempo, more balletic number evaporated almost as soon as it finished — it would be difficult for the newly-initiated like myself to be much less than enthralled by the sheer athleticism and buoyancy of the work, as a whole. At the conclusion of the Moultrie work, my companion at the performance said wide-eyed, and just a bit breathlessly, “I never imagined that ballet could be like this.”

Watching In the Upper Room, a work by Twyla Tharp consisting of a single, extended piece, one could still see something of the tide-like entrances and manic energy brought to bear in Moultrie’s work. However, where Moultrie aimed for ebullience, Tharp seemed committed much more toward the cryptic:  owing much of its emotional shape to Phillip Glass’s beautifully expansive and cascading score, In the Upper Room is constructed like an Escher sketch.

Calling for twitchy little jumps and mechanical lines from the performers, Tharp’s choreography repeats entrances, steps, and blocking until they begin to coalesce into a slowly-emerging, discernible pattern.  Then, introducing the smallest variation in that pattern, Tharp disturbs the complex orbits she has set in motion, deconstructs them, shifts small segments around, and then resets whole thing, to start up again.

New variations are introduced each time, and the work seems almost to expand as it moves forward. The choreography is quirky, with limited vertical movement, and more scurrying about than big, graceful movements. But as fog is pumped across the stage and begins to inhibit visibility, dancers soon are materializing from upstage as if from thin air, one after another, each a surprise. The fog eventually obscures the proscenium, that divide between the stage and the seats, and with so much action along the “Z”-axis and one’s mind trying to decipher Tharp’s puzzle of patterned movements, a pattern that always seems about to be understood, even as it resists solving, one begins to feel pulled into this dreamlike world. If The Sammy Project! takes one’s breath away with thrills and joyfulness, In The Upper Room achieves the same end with mystery, intrigue and rapture. It creates a sensation somewhere between drifting to sleep and drowning at sea.

For neophytes, this season finale provided a near-ideal buffet of ballet: a navigable narrative, an accessible, multifarious revue, and an engaging but slightly more abstract work. Additionally, by showcasing a new piece by an up-and-comer, alongside both locally produced work, and dance imagined by one of America’s preeminent modern choreographers, the Cincinnati Ballet closed 2009/2010 with a useful sampler, hinting at the breadth of what one might expect to see in the coming season.

Those anxious to indulge in some classic performing arts during the Cincinnati Ballet’s summer hiatus, were able to enjoy the final performance of Cincinnati Opera’s Die Meisteringer von Nurnberg on Saturday, June 26.   Information on the rest of the 2010 season can be found at CincinnatiOpera.com, while information on the upcoming Cincinnati Ballet season can be found at CBallet.org.

Categories
Arts & Entertainment Business News

Share opinions and perceptions about downtown with DCI

Downtown Cincinnati Inc. (DCI) is asking people to participate in an online survey about downtown Cincinnati. The survey takes about ten minutes to complete and asks general questions about how your experiences have been, and inquires about your perceptions/opinions of the area.

The responses are completely confidential, but those interested can choose to enter their name into a drawing to win a $100 Downtown Cincinnati Gift Card that is valid at more than 125 destinations.

DCI officials state that survey results will help to measure the perceptions of downtown while helping direct programs and services provided by DCI. The survey is being conducted by R.L. Repass & Partners, an independent research firm, on DCI’s behalf and must be completed by July 14, 2010.

TAKE THE SURVEY ONLINE NOW!

Categories
Business Development News

Broadway Tower at St. Xavier Park reduced to nothing more than parking

In 2003, the City of Cincinnati opened the $9 million, 400-space 7th & Broadway Parking Garage.  The above-ground parking garage was designed to eventually accommodate a 12-story condo tower addition on top that would create approximately 166 condo units.  The condos have yet to materialize, but more parking space has.

Early on the project was once seen as a potential site for a new downtown grocery in an area surging with new residents at the nearby loft conversion projects including Sycamore Place and the Renaissance Apartments.  But while condo projects flooded the downtown Cincinnati market, the developers of the proposed Broadway Tower at St. Xavier Place were unable to get in on the action.

As part of the initial agreement, the City paid $2 million for structural supports that would support the residential tower envisioned atop the parking garage – a figure City officials expected to recover upon completion of the residential tower.  To guarantee such a return officials gave developers, a partnership between Al Neyer Inc. and North American Properties, until June 2010 to apply for a building permit for the residential tower, and while the residential tower is no where in sight, an expanded parking garage is nearing completion.

Procter & Gamble announced last year that it would relocated 650 employees from its Governor’s Hill location to its world headquarters in downtown Cincinnati.  As part of that move P&G needed additional parking for its expanded downtown workforce, and the City was eager to provide that by expanding the 7th & Broadway Parking Garage.  The additional employees will add approximately $630,000 annually in payroll tax revenues, but also seems to be the proverbial nail in the coffin for a bold project that would have put an exclamation point on northeastern downtown’s residential resurgence.

The inability to get the residential project done during relatively good market conditions eventually led developers to the housing crisis of 2008 which has basically paralyzed the housing market ever since.  The net result might be good for city coffers, but for downtown Cincinnati it means 650 more part-time occupants, hundreds of new parking spaces and more than 300 fewer residents.  If people come first, then you would have to view this as a net loss for downtown.

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.

Categories
Development News

Clifton Plaza an early success, improvements needed

Clifton Plaza took the place of the former Bender Optical building along Ludlow Avenue in the heart of Clifton’s vibrant neighborhood business district.  Early on in its concept people were concerned whether more open space was needed, or whether more businesses and people were needed in that central location.  After seeing the results of a recently completed streetscaping project in combination with the new Clifton Plaza, it now appears that additional public space was very much in demand.

The new public space created along Telford Avenue added simple, yet functional, park benches along with a new community board for event postings and other random information.  It took slightly longer to complete the new Clifton Plaza across the street, but the impact appears to be equally strong if early use is any indication.

The problem is not the creation of the new public space, but rather the design of it.  The primary design flaw of Clifton Plaza is the fixed seating.  Seating is extraordinarily important when it comes to public space design, and this type of seating design is straight out of the urban design playbook of two to three decades ago.  Since that time several studies have indicated that users prefer movable seating options where they can assert their control over the space.  This might mean the slight adjustment of a chair as one prepares to sit, or it might mean wholesale change to avoid or seek out sunlight.

“The possibility of choice is as important as the exercise of it.  If you know you can move if you want to, you feel more comfortable staying put,” explained William H. Whyte in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.  “This is why, perhaps, people so often move a chair a few inches this way and that before sitting in it, with the chair ending up about where it was in the first place.  The moves are functional, however.  They are a declaration of autonomy, to oneself, and rather satisfying.”

Whyte goes on to discuss how fixed seating is often awkward in public spaces as there is often much space around them as is the case at the new Clifton Plaza.

“The designer is saying, now you sit right here and you sit there.  People balk.  In some instances, the wrench the seats from their moorings,” Whyte continued.  “Where there is a choice between fixed seats and other kinds of sitting, it is the other that people choose.”

Beyond user preferance, fixed seating allows for a less functional space.  When planners redesigned Fountain Square, non-fixed seating in part helped to create a more open and flexible space better suited for the many events that attract thousands of people to the public space every week.

What works for Clifton Plaza is its large open area towards the back that will allow for flexible programming.  A simple fix could be made by removing these fixed seating options and replacing them with non-fixed alternatives.  This would create a more welcoming public space that encourages users to stay longer and take ownership of the space in a truly dynamic way.