bumsquare
Key Tower 947'
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by bumsquare
-
That’s not much of an incentive when they can just count on the public gifting them a billion dollars.
-
It’s pretty breathtaking. The tourism makes finding restaurants a bit trickier than in Mexico City but it’s a pretty great place to take some pictures. And the atmosphere on the main square with the mariachis in the evening is something I’d never experienced.
-
Lot of good doors
-
I’d go back right now if I could
-
Parque Mexico Roma/La Condesa San Angel/Coyoacan Juarez Centro Castillo de Chapultepec
-
The “renderings” on their Facebook post are….pretty funny
-
How bout Medical Mutual
-
I do think it’s very similar to Shaker Square and that’s part of the problem. It duplicates retail space four miles further out from the city. In fact this development probably puts the nail in the coffin for Shaker Square retail considering the region’s stagnant growth and existing retail vacancy. However I also think Shaker Square was much more strictly oriented to its transit connection and actually drove ridership well into the 2000s
-
Do they though? Not anecdotally but statistically. I don’t have an accurate answer but my guess would be that not very many of those 2k daily trips generate at Van Aken.
-
I wouldn’t consider Van Aken a node of activity for the city unless you would include Legacy Village and Crocker Park as additional candidates. If that’s the case I think I want less nodes of activity.
-
Like I said I doubt this development has reduced car usage. The Blue and Green lines combined get 2k riders each day. How many of those trips are specifically going to shop at Van Aken? To my view it’s not functionally any different from Crocker Park. People patronizing shops and restaurants miles from the city. I’m not “offended” by the idea that city retail is dead, it just bums me out. And these far flung developments just reinforce those patterns. And yes car ownership is lower on the “east side” but probably not among the clientele at Van Aken.
-
I know what you mean but it’s only technically inner ring. At least to my view it’s just an extension of the Legacy/Eton retail corridor
-
I doubt many people are taking the rail to Van Aken. I would love to be wrong. But to me it’s functionally not much different than a smaller Crocker Park. It just reinforces commercial activity at the 271 corridor and away from the center city.
-
I’ll take the boos but this is 10 miles from downtown it’s just fancy sprawl.
-
People have actually been living in “housing” since before the 1970s
-
Should this be moved to the Eugenic Spatial Sorting thread?
-
No La Cave will be in the old Owl spot
-
I think most of us agree that good things are good. The question is whether this is the right basket in which to place the proverbial civic eggs. I would also argue there is plenty of public green space in downtown in particular. And more green space in and of itself isn’t good. It needs to be contextualized in a way that will maximize use.
-
I also can’t shake the feeling that the state being willing to send $60 million to Cleveland for a project that isn’t Bible study, a voter suppression task force, or a book burning is a huge red flag.
-
Water is absolutely a valued amenity. But recognizing that isn’t the same as justifying an enormous public subsidy for theoretical apartments and it isn’t a substitute for knowing if those apartments will actually get filled.
-
I think this gets to the heart of it for me. Who is using the bridge? Where are they coming from and where are they going?
-
Yes of course, but you removed everything else I said. It’s part of the value, but not such an all-encompassing force that the market is self-evident.
-
That’s why a house in Collinwood costs $5 million and you can get a house in Brecksville for $30k. You’re making a lot of assumptions but unfortunately being “subconsciously attracted to water views” isn’t a substitute for actual market analysis. I doubt anybody is against lakefront development. But why here and why with a $200 million dollar land bridge? If the drive for developing the lakefront is so overwhelming and obvious why hasn’t anybody built anything there yet? A bridge is going to be the thing that suddenly turns all the switches on?
-
It’s not noise. The bridge needs to be justified for something besides parking. It also seems important that the whole project is being driven by someone who has directed piles of cash to the state GOP (which controls the purse strings) and is a crooked businessman and incompetent team owner.
-
That all tracks (no pun intended). I appreciate your knowledge about the city/NOACA/state thinking concerning this development. I guess I just don’t understand why this much money and why here? The synergies just aren’t apparent to me. If we’re spending this much money to aid development, wouldn’t it be better spent in areas where we can build off of existing momentum? It always seems like people take it as a given that we need to “open up the lakefront”. But why and why here? To (maybe?) bring this back on topic, if this is really a glorified parking garage, it seems like a pretty convenient way for the Haslams to back door $200 million of public stadium subsidy.
