327

In your opinion, is that reason enough not to reform the code at this time? Multi-family is not a requirement of section 8, and plenty of single-family structures in Cleveland are occupied by section 8 renters. I understand why the city might want such discretion, but IMO it doesn't trump our current and future need for TOD.

OK... getting somewhere... McCleveland, what is your take on the UC incident? Do you think it could have happened as it did, if the zoning for that area had already been changed as suggested in the article? Do you believe the city's zoning code should be revised for TOD purposes? Why or why not? The article/report makes points about zoning and development that are very similar to those I've made here in the past. What is your opinion of the Center for Neighborhood Technology's understanding of zoning? Hts121, no, I don't think that. I would say that zoning reform is necessary, but not sufficient, to foster more TOD. Regardless of what we'd like to see happen, if our current regulations forbid it, we're a lot less likely to see it happen. Step #1 to creating TOD: Allow it. That doesn't mean there aren't other steps, steps beyond the control of the public. But Step #1 seems like a threshold issue in most cases. Just because we don't currently have some developer proposing some awesome perfecto TOD plan doesn't mean we shouldn't change our code now to indicate that's what we want, and to proactively eliminate obstacles for any developer who might one day propose it.

This grows long... forgive me if I step away. I clearly referred to actions not taken in my initial post on this yesterday. More than one specific policy came up, namely the city's zoning code for the UC area and the zoning overlay produced by Midtown Inc. And I'm really just echoing the points made in the report referenced in the article. That's what the discussion is supposed to be about, presumably. But we're pretty far afield at this point... now we're discussing some sort of hybrid between sovereign immunity and ideacrime. My stance is that the city's zoning code is due for an update with TOD as a central goal. RTA has some lovely and thorough powerpoints about how TOD works elsewhere and could work here. I've refereced them in prior research on the concept. Those materials could perhaps be used as a guideline for the code reform. RTA seems to really understand TOD, but RTA doesn't control every aspect necessary to make it happen.

If you must know, I have written public policies at more than one agency, so I'm at least familiar with how that sorta thing works. Sat on the boards? No. But surely you're aware that board members don't tend to construct a lot of policy themselves. Can we now get back to our regularly scheduled topic?

Have you ever worked on Wall Street? Well then who are you to judge their actions. Ever played pro football? That's what I thought. And here you're suggesting that public officials are entitled to degree of deference that nobody even expects for private-sector athletes and investment bankers. You rail against Kasich and his policy choices all the time, but I don't recall you ever being governor. I'm sure it's tough being governor, cut the dude some slack. Why don't we stop evaluating each other's unseen resumes and stick to discussing urban development. The current discussion in this thread involves a report that suggested policy changes which I generally support. What's your opinion?

I'm not criticizing the results, I'm criticizing the specific actions they've taken and not taken. Is that not fair game for public officals? If not I don't know what is. Seems like the heart of the matter, really. Even more specifically, I'm criticizing responses to a report calling for policy changes which seem to claim that no changes are needed. They act like they're two steps ahead of the report's conclusions when it seems more like those conclusions are being dismissed.

HTs121, most of what you're listing had nothing to do with the transit system and was planned before construction on it had even started, let alone finished. Seriously, if the downtown casino is TOD then I'm an aardvark. They aren't planning it around the rail hub it sits upon, let alone the HealthLine out front. Apart from having their own anchors and drawing power, Downtown and Uptown were already connected via rail... so it's hard to attribute new developments in ether area to an upgraded #6 bus. Yes, I think the middle section of Euclid is a better barometer of the HealthLine's TOD effectiveness. It's the control group, if you will.

I've seen all I need to see of Jamie Carroll.

Wow that's awful. Really glad I moved off that block. Not a good block.

"To a large extent, the report echoes existing policies of the City of Cleveland" No... which is why the report advises changing to the zoning code to allow for more multi-famly development. Recall what just happened in University Circle. Density requires a variance around here. Our exsting policies obstruct and prevent TOD. "Schipper said the report supported the logic behind the $200 million bus rapid transit line installed by RTA along Euclid Avenue from Public Square to East Cleveland in 2008." '“Euclid Corridor is a prime example of transit-oriented development,” said Robert Brown, the city’s planning director.' No... what's getting built there involves a lot of surface parking and practically zero mixed-use. This is because it's zoned for commercial/industrial, and because the city and CDC have actvely sought out non-mixed-use developments for that area. If they meant for the HealthLine to be nothing more than a commuter service for large employers then they built too many stops for it. Sorry. There is no way that a report calling for change is also a report suggesting we maintain the status quo and continue down the exact same path we've been on.

Speaking of that area, does anyone know what's happening with the old Truffles space?

I stand corrected. We did indeed vote on that. Kind of. The operative sentence seems to specify that the location from that list would be "predetermined," and all signs pointed to the riverfront site until well after the election, as I recall. I guess the wording leaves open the possibility that they could change their minds about which site(s) they'd predetermined, since there was no requirement to disclose their determination pre-election.

Also the Avalon Station develpment in Shaker. But I agree with KJP's overall point that we're not seeing enough of it, and his reasons why. It seems clear that city leaders and developers are not grasping some of the basic concepts. You can tell by what they've tried to build near Rapid stations recently. EcoVillage was a particularly lame attempt. TOD doesn't usually mean tiny cottages, certainly not at 65th and Lorain. St. Luke's Point was another wasted opportunity. Vaguely suburban for-sale units, plus a large historic conversion set aside for the elderly. Not exactly the makings of a happening neighborhood.

While I'm upset at the prospect of losing the Columbia building, I'm more bothered that they're repurposing the Higbee's space. We didn't vote on that. We voted for a new structure on the river. I had hoped additional traffic in the TC complex would help get a department store back into Higbee's. By taking over that building, the casino curtailed a lot of possible spin-off development. Now it'll be casino and more casino, with an incomplete shopping mall in the middle.

Agreed. I found the response to be objective, and fair in balancing the tradeoffs.

Plenty... which is why there are so many mandatory precautions in place wherever you see sudden and drastic speed changes. Rumble strips, flashing lights, signs that say Danger, etc. This would be on par with dead man's curve and the 490 dead end, except that instead of being an unfortunate consequence of bad planning it would be fully intentional.

Not in suite but easily in building. Good chance of getting a balcony too.

Remember that people are coming from 90 westbound in a seamless transition. A sudden drop to 35 would be a mess. It works where the shoreway becomes Clifton because its readily obvious at that point that the freeway's ending. Try to do that downtown and people will get killed.

700 barely gets you downtown at all. Maybe a studio in the Crittenden + garage. And when I said "scant" I made clear that I meant scant in comparison to those two other areas. A disproportionate amount of Cleveland's apartment stock lies outside city limits. Certain areas of the city are especially short on units, given the general demand. Ohio City and University Circle come to mind. If you're neither rich nor poor, you're even less likely to find something in-city that meets your needs. So, if someone really wants to be in Cleveland proper we're more than able to make recommendations along those lines. But if they have specific needs better met nearby, we can help with that too.

I'd be interested to know what that technicality is. The speed limit change is somewhat controversial.

The city proper has very scant apartment offerings, compared with CH and Lakewood. And a lot of newcomers may not even realize these areas aren't in the city proper. They certainly don't look like suburbs, and a lot of recent development in Cleveland looks more suburban than they do. We live in a crazy mixed up world.

Parallel parking on the shoreway?

My understanding is that the speed limit will stay 50 and there will be no new stop lights. Instead it will remain controlled-access with ramps added for w73rd etc. And the tunnels are being redone.

Very good point. I wish we could biuld a stand-alone parking tower, like in Chicago. Flood the market with supply so that surface parking is no longer the "highest and best use" in so many downtown landowners' minds.

Compares favorably. And it does have the highest population density. AT&T U-verse.