327

I found the comments more interesting than the article. In a nutshell, both new arrivals and transplanted natives say Cleveland's attempts at self-reinvention are stymied by deficiencies in leadership, planning, architecture & aesthetics. I tend to agree. Of course we need more job creation, but we also need higher standards and a coherent plan for how the city will be rebuilt.

My understanding is that there's some kind of "bathtub" foundation that they're digging to, and that they intend to reuse. So most of the ceiling height gain would be from raising the roof rather than dropping the floor.

Seems like the problem with this developer's earlier projects is that they were built as high-end for-sale units in a market that needs new rentals instead. But since this new project is rentals to begin with, I'd say the developer is now on the right track. But I guess the main issue here is two competing developers who (maybe) have bought influence with two competing power brokers in University Circle. Interesting, but I'm not sure what to do with it. I still prefer Ronayne's vision over the councilman's... and if they've both been greased then maybe it cancels out...? The councilman wants to put more for-sale housing on that site and I think he's flat out wrong. And I don't think putting an apartment complex in UC (where they're needed) equals putting a stadium on the lakefront.

It's not the worst imaginable site... but I think the amount of industry already there makes it a lot better suited for more industry. Neighborhoods adjacent to factories are usually a little rough and this one is no exception.

Yeah this is in the middle of an industrial strip that goes all the way to the airport. Not a good location for new residential.

There was a factory (or two) there before, and that site is one I often think of as a better location for the kind of stuff they want to put along Euclid Ave.

The moral and social value of a mental hospital is a separate issue from its value as a "focal point of revitalizaton" for a neighborhood.

I too am a reserved booster. But boost I do, in bushels and droves. I think the problem with "blind boosterism" is that it can serve to protect the status quo, which might not be the best thing for a struggling community.

I think what tradtion7 was getting at is that regardless of the decline's initial causes, the permanent destruction of the old Flats was orchestrated by city hall and the Wolsteins. Other outcomes were possible, and perhaps desirable, to put it mildly.

:clap:

You're right, it smells. I'd like to see immigration opened up across the board. But, given the current state of things, I still support this program. It does nothing to help anyone who wants in but can't buy in, but it doesn't change their situation for the worse either, and it offers a lot of potential to improve the city.

Indeed, thanks for that writeup KJP. Good stuff. I can't get on board with the "easy way out" approach but I think it's important to understand how it came to that.

I agree strongly with the Rustwire article, particularly its last paragraph. Change needs to happen here. For all the progress we've made, most of the city is still a wreck. It's tough to fix that without addressing the leadership and policy choices that got it to this point. And its tough walking that line between promoting the good aspects to outsiders and honestly appraising the bad aspects among ourselves.

Agree with stpats44113 but I think the story continues from there. At some point the current plan was floated and the city decided to back it 100%, to the point of forcing out all the old owners so they could tear down all the old buildings. Long story short, I don't think that was the only option available when things started to go downhill. But the powers that be wanted this project to happen and therefore needed the old Flats to go away.

Well, yeah. That would be ideal.

The "cool" part suggests Lakewood and Birmingham Mich as examples of "cool" suburbs, noting how non-suburban they are. Well, yeah. But that doesn't make Solon cool, it just illustrates that prewar development is better than postwar, and very little suburban land is developed like Lakewood. So no, suburbs are still not cool.

They have one in Greektown, which is sorta like E4th here, but the other two are on the western fringe of downtown.

Same here. I keep the homepage in my browser history, but the logo link was nice.

Great story. While local money heads for the outerbelts, outside investors recognize the global value of our city. Immigrants built Cleveland once and they can do it again.

I dare not speak it.

[clears throat] Build more apartments! Reform the zoning code! Extend the red line! No, extend the waterfront line! Greenspace? GREENSPACE?? KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!

Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. So far... it's weird.

Absolutely. Hopefully RTA can bring back regular waterfront service once phase 1 is open. Because you're right, there's no way everyone's drving in and out of there at the same time. And that's why I doubt there will ever be any sort of "campus" built there. One office tower is plenty, and they wisely put it near WHD and other parking.

Fair enough... but I've been in there and it's comparable to most thrift stores.

Yes, the theater is the Agora and the grocery is Gallucci's. I think Strap and Hts121 may be misconstruing my point here. It's not that the CDC was ever against any given housing project, real or hypothetical. It's a question of what they were for, of what they spent time and money and influence putting together. The Geis project represents exactly what the city and CDC were looking for. Housing doesn't. We have no way to know what housing developers may have come forward with plans for the area, had the CDC not spent the past decade openly and actively pursuing a different direction. Why would residential developers bother approaching Midtown Inc about building housing in an area that Midtown Inc has already made clear will be industrial? Why would you even want to build an apartment block in the middle of what's likely to be an industrial area? There's no prohibition at work, just a clear plan which, by its nature, excludes housing projects from serious consideration by developers. And that's been the case since well before the RTA project broke ground.