327

Razing a historic district for a grassy knoll is insane. Those buildings there should have stayed up until we were 100% ready to replace them.

Yeah it's all spread out, but most of it is spread out along the single axis of Richmond Road. That's ideal for transit. Problem is most transit routes that go out that far just go E-W from downtown. So unless you live at the exact same latitude as your job, you have that big walk along Richmond at the end. A route going N-S along Richmond, perhaps with a stopoff at the Green Rd rapid terminus, would really help a lot of people. Have it go down Mayfield from Richmond to the 271 area and then it helps a bunch more people. By the way, I just tried to pull up a system map on the RTA website and it refuses to give one. Instead, a window says that map is only updated yearly, so you're better off using Google to plan your trip. Not if you need to see a system map you're not.

That sounds about right.

And then walk down to Emery, yes, I suppose. But that's a train, then a bus, then quite a walk.

That space is huge and IIRC there's no patio. Need a lot of restaurant table business to make it work, and Cleats isn't the brand for that.

I'm mystfied as to why they built that loft building for the market they did. Its surroundings simply don't appeal to that market. The rest of the buildout should be more targeted toward the growing university that's only a few blocks away. Seriously, where else do you see ultra-pricey condos built in a run down area next to a college? It makes no sense.

No, there's not. There's a lot of jobs in Beachwood, but all of the office parks have huge parking lots and setbacks and retention basins and impassable barriers diving properties. I work there and I know how hard it is to walk even just a few buildings over often times. It's not dense at all when compared to downtown or any area that could effectively be served by transit. And I'm just talking about Chagrin. Look at Harvard Rd. or Richmond Rd. between Chagrin and Harvard or even that super-sprawling plaza south of Harvard. You're right. But some sort of circulator service would go a long way out here, one that tied in with the Rapids. When I lived off Shaker Square, the blue line could get me halfway to work but then I would need to walk another couple miles to get there. Or I could walk a couple miles south thru Mt. Pleasant to pick up the 15, or take the train downtown and pick up the 15 there. But any of those options would increase my commute from 20 mnutes to about 1.5 hours. No, the Beachwood area isn't all that walkable, but it's a major job center and it could be far better served by transit.

I went to a Sustainable Heights event this week and one of the speakers was Bob Brown, Cleveland Planning Director. He talked about all the work the city had done to change the zoning code to allow for chicken coops and bee farms. So... the corner of E9th and Euclid is zoned for Beachwood-style setbacks and lawn buffers, and University Circle is zoned so rural that apartments require a variance. And Bob Brown is updating the code for chickens. Chickens.

I would venture that expanding outward is more important for RTA than adding landscaping to existing roads or building yet another transit center downtown. It doesn't always seem like existing funds are being targeted toward actual needs. Couple days ago I heard about a project to put solar-powered bus stops in Cleveland Heights. Really?

True, but in terms of jobs there's starting to be some real density along Richmond Rd and 271. It's just really poorly served. We have a lot of transit riders where at my job in Warrensville Hts, but the only bus that comes near here takes a full hour from downtown, and it only serves this road on every other route. We have shifts that end at 11pm, but we have to let people off at 1040 because that's their last chance to get home.

Found the perfect HQ site in Mayfeld Hts? CEO probably lives in Chesterland. The ugly commute between downtown and the Chagrin Valley seems to be a big unspoken factor in all these recent HQ moves. If we could just have one road on the east side with a speed limit over 35 (these do exist in other cities), we might see less corporate flight from downtown.

Defintely. If someone's purpose is to cross Ontario and get to the casino, I don't get how forcing them to do it outdoors helps East 4th. I'm guessing most of these people are not synergy types to begin with. But each one that does wander over is still a casino-induced net gain for East 4th.

Overhead walkways haven't ruined Minneapolis or Cincinnati. I'm as upset about the Columbia building as anyone, but I don't see a problem with putting in a walkway.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't emphasize transit more in our spending. That premise is one we all agree on. But it's a stretch to move from that premise to "we shouldn't fix dead man's curve" or "we shouldn't replace a decrepit freeway bridge." It's even more of a stretch to say we need to reduce capacity and/or speed on existing roadways. The best way to get people on transit is to expand transit. Good transit and good highways aren't mutually exclusive, and people are more likely to support transit expansions that aren't tied to losing something they already like.

So... there was a draft, right when the forum was down. Thoughts? I'm happy wth it overall, but I would have preferred a couple more DL's. We're so short there, it was worth spending half the draft on it IMO. I'm not entirely sold on the TE and FB picks, due to pressing needs elsewhere, though they seem like cool players to have.

I've always liked the KJP innerbelt plan far better than what we're getting. That said, I strongly agree with gottaplan that traffc flow is good and traffic impediments are bad. People will turn to transit when there's enough of it to provide a realistic choice... not because we intentionally make driving less convenient. We should always be looking to improve our options, not to degrade them.

I have degrees in management and law... and while I've rarely been unemployed, I wouldn't call these lucrative fields for 2011. But most people I know who are in healthcare, like nursing or therapy, get regular calls from recruiters.

Aw dad, I need the car keys so I can go to the dance! Everyone's going! You're not fair.

There's a certain objective quality to the suggestion that street conditions are a higher order priority for a city government than varieties of fryer oil. That is not a matter of personal preference. You've got to be kidding. Please tell me you're kidding. And no, the law is not about forcing personal preferences on each other. You're suggesting such broad subjectivity that up is only up if currently elected officials say it is. Wrong. Up is up. And when legislation says up is down, we're all screwed. For the record, I like the indoor smoking ban. Not everything about it but the general principle. And I think it's possible for noise ordinances to go too far, or to invite uneven enforcement. But there's a point at which noise becomes disturbing the peace.

1) That's the problem. We don't need more busy-work for the police. Whenver you call them, they're too busy. 2) Bars have nothing to do with an outdoor smoking ban. The health-related arguments that justified that ban aren't applicable to the outdoors. At this point we're just legislating people's preferences on each other. I don't think we should start banning things just because someone finds them annoying. Even if the vast majority finds them annoying. With no stronger standard, the slippery slope becomes a legitimate concern. Surely you can see that. 3) Anything and everything. The food cart issue is one obvious example, but seriously, anything. This place is in crisis and the crisis is not fat or smoke related. Work on streamlining business permits. Work on modernizing the zoning code. Come up with a plan for little things like potholes & streetlights, or big things like crime & blight. The list goes on and on and on, and way at the botttom of it is trans fat.

Some of the bars with no kitchen and no room to build a patio were hit pretty hard. The consequences are many: 1) More work for an overtaxed police force and justice system, 2) an increasingly unwelcoming nanny-state environment in a place that needs to welcome every possible visitor, 3) the aforementioned bigger fish that City Council isn't frying while they're attending to this.

Outdoors? A running car is more of a health issue than a chainsmoker standing next to you. Which one can you survive longer with in an enclosed area? The car will kill you in minutes. Among all the dangers this world presents, outdoor second hand smoke is hardly deserving of a specific ban. Given that there are consequences to such a ban, the net benefit seems minimal.

If the developer can afford to "give away" a car with each house, shouldn't it clue you in that he's rippng you off? That he's been ripping everyone off for many years?

You may think it's tiring, but it's true. I'm a lawyer. I have a profound respect for the law. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to enact "honor" laws like the outdoor smoking ban. That's just a mockery of the law, it creates more law breakers without any ramifications. By all means, it should be okay to stroll down E. 4th with a cup of beer, to use marijuana, to sleep in your car....it's an issue of personal freedom to me. I agree. Behavioral micromanagement is a misuse of the legal process. It leads to less respect for all laws, including the important ones.

At least it isn't more siding.