A Little History Lesson First:
The Cincinnati Riverfront Arena has a rich history starting with its original name, Riverfront Coliseum, to The Crown, Firstar Center, U.S. Bank Arena, and finally to Heritage Bank Center. The arena was the home to many sporting teams like the Cincinnati Stingers of the World Hockey Association from 1975 to 1979, the NBA’s Cincinnati Royals before moving to Kansas City and the Cincinnati Bearcats men's basketball program until they moved uptown. Today the arena is home to the Cincinnati Cyclones of the ECHL and hosts numerous events, including concerts, political rallies, and family events. The arena went through a $14 million dollar renovation in 1997 with the Cyclones moving in, adding additional seating (totaling 17,556), improved concourses and restrooms, widened concessions areas and a new centered-hanging video board. With its premiere location in the middle of downtown, sufficient parking infrastructure, short proximity to local businesses and restaurants, and riverfront views, this arena has significance in Cincinnati's ever evolving, rich history. Unfortunately, in today’s fast-paced society the Heritage Bank Center no longer competes with surrounding city’s indoor arenas.
Credited to Mark Treitel, Photos from the Cincinnati Enquirer Photo Archive
So Why Is This So Important?
Cincinnati has claimed their status as a major league city with an NFL and MLB team, the addition of FC Cincinnati, TQL Stadium, and a modernized convention center. The issue is that this premier indoor event center is 50 years old and no longer brings the economic impact it used to. The city is looking to jump back into the competition by building a new, modern indoor event center seating up to18,000 fans (only a few hundred more seats than the current total). This would make the city very attractive to major concert headliners, national and international-level sporting events, political conventions and more. The current competition includes the T-Mobile Center in Kansas City, Rupp Arena and Lexington, CFG Bank Arena in Baltimore, KFC Yum! Center in Louisville, and CHI Health Center in Omaha. All hosting up to 27 more major music concerts and 100% more NCAA basketball games than our event center.
There are four potential sites for the Heritage Bank Center on the table. All but one moves that arena away from the beloved riverfront location. Let’s dive into each of these more.
The 4 Potential Sites and Why Only One Makes Sense for Cincinnati
The city’s two high-potential sites are West Downtown and Town Center Garage. The third option considered is a lot next to the Hard Rock Casino with the final fourth option being the arena’s current location on the riverfront but was dismissed quickly.
Site 1: The West Downtown: I-75 Corridor Post-Construction
The 9.62-acre site near the convention center offers strong potential for a new arena, with favorable grading, nearby parking, highway visibility, and proximity to downtown attractions and future development opportunities. It could serve as a major anchor for the west side except the Convention Center and FCC serves as that anchor for the west side already. Another downside to this site is that it relies on the Brent Spence Corridor project’s construction timeline, which is uncertain, long and incredibly disruptive to the entire area. Not to mention that the land is currently used by the highway ramp. This poses a major drawback, as the construction timeline is undefined currently, making the site unsuitable for Cincinnati’s near-term competitiveness in the regional arena market. The city believes the category of site acquisition ranks high but based on what we just discussed we beg to differ. Like Towne Center Garage, the West Downtown location would relocate the arena from the riverfront which could harm businesses there and diminish the vibrancy of the riverfront district. Retail development and a grocery store serving the West End community would better suit this site than an arena.
Pros:
Close to public transit
Close to Downtown and amenities
High urban population
High land area and access
Potential increase in OTR business
Cons:
Difficult site acquisition
Negative effect on West End neighborhoods
Low development opportunities for additional amenities
Decrease in riverfront businesses
Too any anchors on the west side
Timeline depends on the Bridge project construction
Site 2: Towne Center Garage: Central Parkway and Central Ave.
The 6.37-acre site, near TQL Stadium and Music Hall, could boost development in the West End and benefit nearby OTR businesses. However, the site is small (limiting arena concourse space), would displace WCET (who owns the air rights to that area) and remove an existing parking garage, worsening parking challenges. One could say parking could be worse at this site than at the current site, just saying. Increased traffic and noise would likely burden West End residents, who have already experienced disproportionate burden and trauma from development before given the area’s history (FCC and the highway). This would cause the West End residents to oppose the project. Additionally, relocating the arena from the riverfront could harm businesses there and diminish the vibrancy of the riverfront district. The city believes site acquisitions, land area and access, parking and development categories rank high, but we believe these categories should be ranked lower based on what we discussed.
Pros:
Close to public transit
Close to Downtown and amenities/FCC connection
High urban population
Cons:
Difficult site acquisition
Low land area and access
Low parking opportunities
Too close to residential neighborhoods
Low development opportunities for additional amenities
Very tight fit
Displacement of businesses
Decrease in riverfront businesses
Inappropriate density
Highway construction: disruption of traffic flow and access in area
Site 3: Hard Rock Casino: Broadway Commons at Reading Rd
This 5.16-acre, underutilized site is not the city’s top pick but does show potential because Hard Rock has expressed interest in being involved as a private investor and allows use of existing parking infrastructure. The city ranked the category of land area and access low for this site but based on the Casino’s high interest in the arena moving next door we don’t see why this would be an issue. The main concern is that the site is too isolated for the rest of Downtown’s urban core and is the farthest from existing amenities. But on the contrary, it could serve as an eastern anchor and gateway like the convention center on the west side of Cincinnati. Lastly, the city ranked the categories of amenities/public services, population and development higher than we believe they should be.
Pros:
Eastern downtown gateway/anchor
Development opportunities along Eggleston
Sufficient parking
Easy site acquisition
Potential private partner
High land area and access
Close to public transit
Cons:
Far from downtown amenities
Minimal public amenities and services
Low urban population
Too close to residential neighborhoods
Decrease in riverfront business
Site 4: Current Heritage Bank Center Site: Riverfront (aka the best option, duh)
This site received a low score, though the reasons are unclear and may be overstated. The city emphasized “challenges,” but all sites face obstacles, and this one may have been judged too harshly. The city ranked the categories of site acquisition, land area and access, and development much lower than the actual potential for this site. We see strong opportunities here: the site currently leaves a noticeable gap in the riverfront, yet it offers an opportunity to connect The Banks, Smale Riverfront Park, and Sawyer Point while supporting new developments on the east end of downtown. The city quickly made their mind up that the current site, 4.17-acres, did not achieve the objectives of the new arena and would cost more money than either of the three other options. We beg to differ for these reasons:
1. The city could use the Fifth Third Arena on UC’s campus or TQL Stadium during construction to bring in revenue and shows. This would settle the issue on Construction Downtime.
2. The city is worried about the arena’s fixed boundaries on all four sides. We say no worries! Let’s build up, adding onto the current arena. If the arena only needs to hold 444 more seats to achieve 18,000 seat goal, then we find it feasible to add those additional seats onto the existing venue. Also, traffic patterns could be redesigned, opening the arena site for venue functions (the highway ramp and bridge are the only restrictions).
3. This location has amazing views of the riverfront due to its suspension above grade and proximity to the water. A more appropriately designed plaza and building on the elevated platform supports better use, interest and high levels of energy as fans travel up to the main gates. The exterior concourse even connects the Arena and the Riverfront Stadium bringing them together in unity. This concourse isn’t an issue, it’s an opportunity.
4. The city says there is no significant development potential at this site, but there are vacant sites surrounding the venue and an underutilized riverfront park. These spaces could be used for future development on the project to help bring the arena up to speed with its competitors. See map below:
5. Lastly the city is worried about the new arena becoming a barrier between the central and eastern river-fronts, but we think it could be an amazing connection!
Pros:
Riverfront views
Close to downtown and amenities
Sufficient parking
Main structure is already built
Site is already acquired
High land area and access
High population
Close to public transit
Low development opportunities for additional amenities
Cons:
Arena use would be disrupted for construction
Expansion restricted by highway ramp and bridge
We aren’t the only ones who think this either! MSA Design was hired by the owners of the Heritage Bank Center to showcase the potential of the current site. See the link below to their design.
Heritage Bank Center - A New Vision
We even did some thinking and came up with these designs for a new look of the Heritage Bank Center. Check it out!
IDEA 1:
IDEA 2:
Conclusion
While all sites have rough-equal distance to the city’s major landmarks, we believe there is value in supporting an entertainment district on the east end of downtown. There are even parking development opportunities immediately surrounding the current site and up Eggleston. What do you all think? Should the Arena move to a new location of stay on the riverfront? We would love to hear your thoughts! Check out the New Cincinnati Arena Feasibility Study for yourself via the PowerPoint Presentation link!
Works Cited
Treitel, Mark. 25 July 2025. Riverfront Coliseum, Cincinnati, Ohio, Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati, OH, https://digital.cincinnatilibrary.org/digital/collection/p16998coll65/id/38684/rec/8. Accessed 19 Aug. 2025.