327

From Collinwood locals, I get a sense that the area has gone significantly downhill in the last decade. I did some campaign work there over the summer (Lakeshore/185th area) and was taken aback by the amount of abandonment, even on those little streets that dead end at the lake.

I like the cut of his jib.

I agree too, housing prices still need to come down a lot from where they are now. It makes no sense for them to outpace wage growth and that's exactly what happened for way too long. Of course, higher wages would also solve the problem. But somehow that would be socialism.

I drove by that cancer building today, and the snow buildup at the bottom of that "swoop" completely covered the windows on the first floor, maybe higher. The above photos were taken pre-storm, and in the first two you can see a bit of snow built up at the lower lip of the swoop. Imagine 50x that much. I doubt UH planned on hiring crews to shovel their windows. But that's exactly what they're gonna need.

All of this is subjective, so both sources could be correct. It's possible that sites and deals were offered and AG didn't like them, even thought they amounted to "no deal" being offered. It's also possible that AG made counterproposals (or at least inquiries) and the city - or the property owners in question - didn't like them. Then again, it's also possible that AG proposed something too suburban campus-y for the sites they wanted and the city balked. That one's a little harder to believe. Giving credit where credit is due, it does seem like this administration is intent on bringing in employers at any cost.

The one next to the Agora. It's super nice inside and the landlord is great. But OMG the stuff that goes on around there...

NOT TRUE. AG did want a location in Downtown and they're offered only horrible locations by the Dept of Economic Development, and no deals. For every decent location with open/buildable land that AG inquired about, they were told that the land MAY already be used for something else. As a result, Downtown lost 2,000 white collar, mostly well-paying, jobs, including 500 creative employees, from a company ready and willing to make the move. The city made NO EFFORT to have them. I'd like to know more about this. If true, it's disturbing but not at all surprising.

I used to live in that area and it is indeed very bad. Constant crime, some of it straight from a horror movie. And I think that if current development plans go forward, i.e. making it into a suburban industrial park, that stretch will remain desolate and dangerous at night. I doubt the BRT had much, if anything, to do with any private development plans there. If it did, then why are those plans so car-centric? This stuff probably won't even have doors facing Euclid Ave. However, there are a couple of housing projects in the works for Euclid too. One for the elderly and one for the homeless, as I understand. Those will probably be keyed to BRT usage... but that's not exactly the sort of ROI anyone had in mind. Is it?

This is a great idea.

"9. 9. Like other states, Ohio is taking a step-by-step approach to expanding passenger rail service. First the state would introduce limited stop, 79 mph service linking Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland with three trains in the morning and three trains at night. More trains, and possibly more station stops, would be added as more people ride the trains. As ridership grows, more improvements would be made to introduce up to 110 mph rail service in the 3C corridor and elsewhere throughout the state. Do you support this step-by-step approach? (pick one) yes/no/no opinion" Yes... and the wording was designed to elicit a positive response. Such is often the case with surveys, particularly when there's a conflict of interest involved. Here we have ODOT casting its own plan in the best possible light then asking for approval. Who's going to say no to that statement as worded? It describes improvement, and everybody likes improvement. It doesn't ask whether the incremental approach would be preferable to pursuing high speed service, or preferable to doing nothing. It doesn't ask whether initiating 3C service would be preferable to upgrading existing service, or preferable to pursuing other new routes. It's cast as all or nothing, or way or the highway, from the unnecessary first sentence to the limited answer choices.

A legit HSR propsal would garner a lot more public support than 3C did. It may be more expensive but it's also modern and competitive, therefore arguably worth the investment. Most 3C opponents I encountered were not even a little bit anti-rail, nor did they take orders from Republicans, but they cited speed as the overwhelming factor in their assessment of the project.

You're absolutely right, but therein lies the problem. We can't afford high speed rail right now, nor is it even really that useful without an underlying network of "regular" speed rail. To propose high speed rail where no rail exists at all is a very tough sell due to the costs. On the other hand, the naysayers and mouth breathing troglodytes in government and the general populace don't see the point of a regular speed network either, as we've very clearly seen. All they see is "slower than driving the interstate" (even if in reality it isn't) and then completely discount it. Speed does matter. In evaluating modes of transportation, speed will always matter. A modern and competitive intercity rail plan might find a receptive audience in Ohio. It doesn't need to make a profit, but it does need to be competitive with other modes.

This area has more going for it than many areas near downtown, and stabilizing it might help EC and UC. The east side needs all the help it can get. How many neighborhoods have an anchor as solid as the Beachland to build around? If we're gonna promote the city with rock music, which we're sorta locked into, we need to invest in the neighborhoods around concert clubs.

It's a shame that the area around the Agora won't be developed into a neighborhood. It could do really well with the college crowd. Alas.

It's really disadvantaged by its distance from everything else. Our cool neighborhoods are all either just west of downtown or just east of Case. That's why I'm so supportive of extending the waterfront line (or the red line) ASAP. At least then it would be more connected with other places the cool kids like to hang out, and it would offer a viable car-free commute to major employment centers.

Yes. The traffic and usage of a park is determined more by its surroundings than by its features. The Mall is surrounded by high-security government buildings that close by 5pm. It is cut off, by these surroundings, from traffic generators like residential and retail and entertainment. We could display a real live unicorn there and we still would not see a substantial change in its usage. I would therefore not recommend breaking the bank on features. Observation and critical thinking. Some of the reasoning is found in my post, some is found in the one I originally quoted. Here's more: Parks are by nature a pedestrian amenity. We may drive to them, but we generally don't drive on them. As a result, parks are utilized largely by those who are already in walking distance. They typically arrive at that point, near the park, because they had a separate reason to visit it (or they live nearby). That ties into the nature of what surrounds the park. Apartments? 24 hour activity cycle, peaking with evenings and weekends. Entertanment? Meals and evenings, sometimes late night. Retail? Primarily evenings and weekends. Government? Very very limted, no evenings no weekends. And even when you are visiting a government building, it's often not an experience you want to linger or dwell on. You're probably missing work to be there. Thus the Mall isn't even that busy 9-5 on weekdays when the government stuff is open.

Yes. The traffic and usage of a park is determined more by its surroundings than by its features. The Mall is surrounded by high-security government buildings that close by 5pm. It is cut off, by these surroundings, from traffic generators like residential and retail and entertainment. We could display a real live unicorn there and we still would not see a substantial change in its usage. I would therefore not recommend breaking the bank on features.

Pittsburgh has made different policy choices than Cleveland. They have not allowed their inner city to be torn down or replaced with suburban develpment. They have also taken concrete steps to encourage inner city retail. These approaches could work in Cleveland too. 100% agreed that Cleveland and Pittsburgh are best served by strengthening mutual ties. They both have more in common than either does with the rest of its respective state. In many ways the Youngstown area already feels like a shared exurb.

It does seem like some of these school zones are lengthened and timed for the purpose of enhancing revenue. Safety is good, nobody's against safety. But safety doesn't explain the way school zones are handled here, nor does it justify the ridiculously low speed limits on many major roads. There's too much contrary evidence. Cities that do not overregulate speed like this have not become pedestrian bloodbaths.

Broadly underwhelming. Nice to hear late night service mentioned, and regional cooperation is always good. I'm glad they're lookng high and low for funding. But not much there about long term projects. We should have a plan for future rail expansion even if the money's not there now. Without that I feel like we're destined for more questionable spending on things like BRT and these downtown "transit centers."

How about this counter: If you're breaking it down per person/mile, and you're including the rolling stock for trains, seems like the other side of the equation has to include all the cars and buses we buy. It's not a subsidy but it's still a cost passed on to the consumer, just handled differently. This way you can account for the economic inefficiency of making everybody buy their own separate rolling stock. Rail is a complete transit system. Roads only get you halfway.

Development is dictated every day, at least certain aspects of it. We don't live in an anarchy. Developers don't get to "dictate" land use and plannning. Midtown didn't/doesn't have to be zoned industrial. The city's decision to let Euclid Ave go industrial in the first place was a major factor driving early suburbanization. That too wasn't necessary. It was a policy choice made by officials in a democratic government. They have the power to make and enforce laws, we have the power to replace them if we want things done differently. Where? Not only is that stretch mostly full, a lot of it is recent construction. Red Cross, RTA garage, Applied Industrial, sewer HQ, some new offices... the only sizeable open lot I can think of, offhand, is the parking lot for the social services center at 40th. I just don't think all seed projects are equally appropriate for all areas, and I really believe that arranging our main street like this will repel as much development as it creates.

You can't just ram market rate apartments in amongst mental hospitals, homeless shelters and industrial parks. Not now, not later. I think that ship has sailed. Cleveland's planning regime was faced with a choice here and they made one. I did talk to Bob Brown when these plans surfaced, and he made it quite clear what choice had been made. He also made clear the reason why: short term job growth trumps long term planning. The city's position on this is a valid one, but it's not the only possible choice. To me, there's no sense in trading a few hundred jobs for a poorly planned city that chases away thousands more. And if you're going to remake your entire main street, why would you then sacrifice it to the very first development options that come along? If this wasn't worth doing right, what is?

yes

The transitional homeless housing looks nice, but I'm really not happy about any of these projects. We needed to be more patient and more selective in redeveloping Euclid. I sorta hope the state hospital doesn't happen, but even without it the tone is already set. General public-- stay away. This is not an urban main street, it's a series of private compounds.