City’s third Community Entertainment District designated in Price Hill

City and neighborhood leaders gathered in Price Hill yesterday to celebrate the designation of Cincinnati’s third Community Entertainment District (CED). The new CED will cover the Incline District and is expected to facilitate redevelopment efforts ongoing in the neighborhood.

Price Hill was required to go through an application process in order to receive the CED designation which requires that an area include entertainment, retail, sporting, cultural, and/or arts establishments.

Once the designation is in place it allows new restaurants to open with a liquor license thus reducing startup costs by an estimated $30,000. Nine additional liquor licenses will be up for grabs in the new Price Hill CED.


City and neighborhood leaders gather in Price Hill to celebrate the CED designation. Image provided.

“We decided to pursue the CED designation after seeing its potential to free up capital for smaller restaurateurs,” Diana Vakharia, director of operations at Price Hill Will, told UrbanCincy. “The costs of installing a commercial kitchen and other upgrades are burdensome enough.”

Vakharia said that the tools and resources provided with the designation will help Price Hill better compete in the initial years of economic revitalization taking place there.

In addition to the $50 million Incline Square development, a new residential development called The Flats reached 100 percent occupancy in 60 days, and the area is also soon house the region’s second Bayou Fish House location. Price Hill Will officials also say that property owners are in negotiations with another potential restaurant.

In total, the 48-acre Price Hill Community Entertainment District includes more than 70,000 square feet of commercial space available within existing and potential new structures.

In addition to Price Hill, Pleasant Ridge received the CED designation with the help of Cincinnati City Councilmember Laure Quinlivan (D) last December. Two other CED designations exist in downtown Cincinnati along the central riverfront for The Banks.

City officials say that neighborhood leaders in Over-the-Rhine, Northside and Madisonville are also working on applications to receive the coveted designation.

“Helping neighborhoods thrive and grow is my goal,” Councilmember Quinlivan said. “It’s going to be exciting to see what happens in the Incline District now.”

  • Matt Jacob

    One thing that I’ve been wondering about all these CED’s and the new liquor licenses that go with them is how they will impact the already established bars in the city that didn’t get the benefit of free licenses. Mt. Adams isn’t a CED (correct me if I’m wrong) but these new entertainment districts compete directly with it and all the bars up there bought their own licenses. I understand that the idea is to concentrate new bars into these CED areas, but isn’t this new economic growth that they claim to generate mostly canabalizing the existing entertainemtn areas of the city? Is this really a good thing if thats the case?

  • Mike

    As a Pleasant Ridge resident, I can tell you not much has happened there since the neighborhood got the designation. From what I can tell, the only thing is the Emanu Restaurant that was already there got a liquor license and purchased the building they were previously leasing. Nothing new has come along to this point.

  • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

    I think the liquor licenses are generally being used for restaurants, not bars or clubs. In reality these CEDs are not really “entertainment districts” in the way most of us would think. They don’t really have entertainment venues, and don’t plan to add any.

    I think this is really just a creative way to get more liquor licenses within the city limits. If Ohio still didn’t have Prohibition-era liquor license laws on the books we wouldn’t have this issue of liquor licenses being arbitrarily limited and then sold off to the highest bidder.

  • LQ

    Keep in mind with the new census we lost 18 liquor licenses, so add 4 for Pridge and 9 for Price Hill and we’re still below what we had in 2009. Also Pridge has used 1 of their 4 and I would be suprised to see more than 3 or 4 utilized in Price Hill.

  • Neil

    Cincinnati’s entertainment options are still a bit on the lacking side and limiting liquor licenses creates an artificial scarcity. These prohibition era laws should be off the books to begin with. I’m glad there is a workaround and neighborhoods should take advantage of it for their own economic development. From what I understand OTR is strating to push for this as well, which IMO is an excellent spot for it.

  • adam.

    from what I understand these licenses are only available to venues with some sort of operating kitchen. Can’t remember how robust the kitchen must be though(heating pretzels behind the bar to full sitdown eating-as-primary-purpose restaurant).

  • http://zacharyschunn.blogspot.com Zachary Schunn

    This is a great first step–emphasis FIRST STEP–in sparking more development and removing strict zoning and other restrictions.

    Not to get political, but there are certain council members that like to point to “red tape” as holding back development in the city. And they’re certainly right, but it’s clear that they’re focusing on the wrong regulations.

    It’s things like outdated liquor-licensing laws and mid-20th century Euclidean zoning laws that are holding us back. I agree with you, Neil, this is a good move but what should really happen is they should reform how liquor licenses are passed out, to make it easier for start-ups.

    And if I understand what LQ and the rest of Council are doing, though, this is also a first step towards form-based codes. I’ve used our city’s zoning code; it’s outrageous. It puts so many restrictions on developers, and has helped lead to the homogeneity of our built environment. Hopefully once form-based codes are finally implemented in neighborhoods, the restrictions will ease and developers will have easier times starting projects. Further, hopefully the architectural environment improves and a more eclectic mix of uses and styles takes hold.

  • The wheels on the streetcar…

    I’m seeing a lot of purple in that picture. Is that Barney? Oh wait, here he is…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL1aSHhucWQ

    “Truly I have never seen such a wondrous carriage. How does it work?,” asks the girl in the video. It doesn’t is the answer.

    Vote YES on 48. 5th Street to Findlay Market is a joke. Ride a bike or better yet, walk a few blocks. If Bortz wants to build a streetcar to connect the property interests of his family, let Towne Properties finance the project. As for many of the others who think this is a good use of money, find your sense of belonging and acceptance elsewhere. Your cult of insecurity is making Scientology seem rational.

  • Mark

    “Wheels” why is it that you and the majority of those who share your short-sighted views only know how to criticize? If you think the streetcar is such a bad idea what would be a better use of the roughly $50 million that will come from city funds? Do you have any original thoughts or are you just the stereo typical tea-bagger who wants the city to shut down spending on any new projects and pour all available funds into roads and strip malls?

    The city needs to invest in projects that will help create sustainable economic development in the urban core which will increase city tax revenues rather than maintaining or demolishing a stock of historically significant, ornate, derelict buildings. If an individual is in a personal financial would you advise them to shut down spending entirely? If they could spend $2K on a class that would increase their salary by $500 a year would that be a worthwhile investment? What if it increased their salary by $750 annually? Our country is in a massive financial crisis that has built up for decades. The solution to financial crisis is not to shut down spending, but to carefully assess expenditures and spend on projects that create the most return on investment (ROI). Projects should be evaluated and awarded funding based on anticipated ROI. Unfortunately, or country has not been operating in this effective manner because our country has been catering decisions to self interest groups such as COAST.

    Contrary to the beliefs of COAST roads typically have a relatively low ROI at best, and often have a negative economic ROI. Obviously the approach of the past doesn’t work. If it did our city would not be in a financial crisis. Going forward investments need to be evaluated and granted funds accordingly. Based on the evaluation the streetcar appears to be a good investment and therefore should be awarded funds. Therefore the only plausible explanation for an individual not supporting the streetcar is if either a.) they feel the evaluation performed on the streetcar was skewed, or b.) they do not support the streetcar based on personal opinions/feelings. If A is the case then perhaps COAST should hire engineers, urban planners, and economists to perform additional research to corroborate or disprove the study that was already performed and further evaluate the economic value of the project. Unfortunately, it appears that the real reason for COAST’s crusade is the latter.

    Furthermore, regardless of anyone’s opinion in regards to the streetcar no person who desires economic growth in the city of Cincinnati should vote yes on issue 48. Road-blocking all investment in rail within city limits is short-sighted and absolutely idiotic.

  • http://zacharyschunn.blogspot.com Zachary Schunn

    @Mark:

    You make fine points, but unfortunately the faceless trolls that post here are not looking for intelligent debate. IMO, they’re just looking to throw conversations off-track and keep us from talking about things OTHER than the streetcar or Issue 48.

    There is no reason or logic with these guys. Let’s all just let them be, and focus on productive conversations.

    Oh, and one more thing: NO on 48. :)

  • adam.

    *don’t feed the trolls