327

Well, I guess it's time to build another Walgreens.

Congratulations! I very much wanted to pursue the JD/MPA option and decided against it, but only for financial reasons. They do cut you a break on your tuition... I think they may charge your law credits at the lower grad-school rate. It just wasn't enough in my case. On the whole, school will take longer and cost more if you do this. But both programs are highly reputable and CSU's MPA program is supposedly top-notch. I know several people who did the dual degree and they never complained about it being too much to handle. Some of them had day jobs too. I'm told the MPA curriculum is considerably easier than law, though it involves more math than some law students might prefer.

I agree that the issue is functionality rather than historic-ness per se. The ony nexus with historic preservation is the fact that historic structures are usually more appropriate for urban use than what tends to replace them. But that problem can be addressed by updating the zoning codes. Most of them nowadays were written in the anti-urban pro-sprawl era. So in that sense, yes our current zoning codes are themselves destructive... but only because of their setback-happy content, not by merit of being zoning codes. And you're right, so much damage has been done to the urban fabric in places like Cleveland... and sprawl is becoming so passe... that "modernization" could very well describe the process of re-urbanizing.

This morning I quoted some "Manic Monday" lyrics, and a friend of mine mistook it for "Blame it on the Rain." How often do you encounter two Milli Vanilli references in the same day? Once in my life, that's how often.

No need to worry about how I feel. I'm on your side, and I was talking about how the other side might feel. And I'm not sure any of the questions I've raised have been resolved, but that's not the issue either. You know I want 3C to get built. But I'm seeing both sides talking past each other. We agree that this is being set up as a political wedge issue. Public input, once completed, usually doesn't result in anything controversial enough to be used a wedge issue. But here it has. The majority of the state had never heard of this project until the federal funds were awarded. The assertion that public input has already closed is... unfortunate at this time.

Agreed. But Scene's criticisms of Drew's approach are still valid. The fact that Cleveland needs to be more pro-business doesn't mean that "free market principles" alone are going to solve the city's problems. In some cases, as noted above, policies justified by "free market principles" have been most unhelpful to this region.

I fully recognize that. It's been explained here before. And whether or not it's been explained to Bill Harris, it doesn't sound like the root of his concerns. Harris and Husted keep mentioning the "PR" spending not because they're childish or incompetent. It's because this process has focused on making people agree to a certain plan, without compromise, while so little respect has been shown toward anyone's public input. As far as comparing 3C to highway projects, major changes have been made to some prominent highway plans around here (Shoreway, Innerbelt) based on public input, or based on knowledge that wasn't available when the plans were initially developed. Is 3C similarly open to change? It seems to me that this is what Harris and Husted were getting at. Seems like they're wanting to see more openness to public input, and less aggressive promotion of this plan as being the only answer. I'm aware that their party line is far from pro-rail, but I'm also aware that their party doesn't oppose rail nearly as strongly as, say, abortion. The fact that 3C is having this kind of trouble at the controlling board, after such a big federal grant, suggests that something about it smells funny to these guys. That, or it suggests that they smell a winning election issue here, like gay marriage in 2004. Name another major public project for which operating funds have yet to be approved, but absolutely no changes to the plan can even be discussed. We're going to the controlling board asking for money to operate trains, for the first time in ages... and we're telling them, and the legislature, and the entire populace that if they have questions about this plan it's only because they're uneducated. That's what comes off so special and different about this project... not the fact that it requires EPA studies. I think the current promotional strategy is so insulting it could sink the democratic ticket statewide.

I don't think that's what Harris and Husted were saying. Just like real estate appraisers, rail consultants who give out low projections may see their revenue dry up in a hurry. It's not ideological bias, it's an economic conflict of interest. Kinda like lenders and real estate appraisers. The paying party wants certain numbers... and those numbers are selected before the consultant/appraiser is. A consultant/appraiser who disagrees with those numbers will simply not be selected. This is why I take a lot of these official reports (on various issues) with a grain of salt. The neutral 3rd party is rarely neutral. These are legitimate questions and they deserve more respect than scorn. I am increasingly troubled by the us vs. them mentality on the pro-rail side. We're the ones trying to make big changes, so we're the ones needing to earn broad acceptance for our views. That isn't accomplished by attacking people who raise valid concerns. I really hope there's a change in tone before we get into the full swing of the general election.

I don't think there would be as much urban decay, but I think a subway or two that replaced the city's two busiest streetcar lines (Euclid and St. Clair) would have done much more to preserve and even enhance the density of those corridors. As it stands, the congestion of auto traffic and the inability of streetcars to quickly move through that traffic made much of the east side choke on its own density. Now, if the city was willing to enforce car traffic-free transit right of ways, provide safer streetcar stops rather than have people stand in the middle of the street, and put low-power electrical circuits in the tracks that provide green lights to streetcars at intersections (the same circuits cause flashers/gates to activate at railroad crossings), then I think we would still have a viable streetcar system in Cleveland. And, as a consequence, I think we have many more viable neighborhoods in Cleveland. There still would have been some decay, as we were as hell-bent as any large metro in building highways to decentralize the population. But that sprawl would have been less with a modernized streetcar system and a subway or two. Great points, especially about the neighborhoods and decay... I don't think there would be much decay if the streetcars had remained. They were an integral part of the city's design, and to an extent, the city can't be expected to function without them.

When I hear Dayton, Ohio... I think of barbershop quartet music.

Safe to live downtown? Absolutely. Safe to run downtown at night? I would vote yes. Downtown itself offers extra safety forces and a growing professional population. This makes it one of the safest neighborhoods in the city, IMO, safer than some of our suburbs even. However there are areas near downtown, primarily to the east, where I would not recommend running at night. I see these as two very different situations, though that may not be the case for others you've spoken with. I've found that people from outside the city tend to think "downtown" goes out 50-100 blocks in either direction, which it doesn't.

^ I'm not sure what applies to a drafty farmhouse applies to all historic structures. Aesthetics are what they are, and people like what they like. Fair enough. But we're specifically talking about new structures here. The issue is whether unplanned unzoned development is economically advantageous. I say it's not. I don't think Houston proves that it is, because I attribute Houston's growth to other factors, and I think these same factors allow Houston to get away with haphazard development. Cleveland's climate doesn't appeal to retirees and Cleveland was never part of Mexico. The oil industry is based in Houston for reasons other than the ease of building Walgreens there. The reasons that people "want to live" in Houston cannot be duplicated in Cleveland. Also note that moving somewhere for a job differs from wanting to live there, and moving away due to lack of jobs differs from wanting to leave. Cleveland and its rust belt siblings need to offer something more than colder versions of Houston. Traditional urban design has been highly effective for many thousands of years in many different climates. It was develped through the combined experience of millions of people worldwide throughout history. Northern cities that draw investment do so by impressing people with their urbanity. Allowing individual developers to destroy that urbanity is not even helpful to those developers in the long term. By making their surroundings less attractive and less functional on the whole, they depress their own property values. To believe that you have to believe urban property values are interdependent... which I don't think is much of a stretch. That's how appraisal is done. The quality of your property is determined primarily by the quality of your neighborhood and your street. History has shown that certain combinations of land uses work better than others.

You tell me. Lack of zoning caused the initial problems in Cleveland, which led to the development of both Shaker Heights and of zoning. I'm not sure where, in that explanation, you find material to suggest that I said zoning caused the problem. Subsequent to that era came the sprawl era. Many of our pre-zoning mistakes, as well as some new mistakes based on the emerging suburban mindset, were then immortalized (temporarily of course) in the zoning code. Wreckage ensued, as did dozens of Walgreens. That cause-effect relationship doesn't invalidate the concept of zoning codes... it suggests that the content of zoning codes is important, and that your city will reflect the values reflected in its zoning codes. It's quite a leap from there to say that zoning must go, planning must go, and each urban parcel should be developed according its owners' whimsy. That's like saying the only answer to Hitler or Stalin is anarchy. Yeah that's one answer... but it involves throwing out the baby with the bathwater, cutting off the nose to spite the face, and puking on one's own foot. If the zoning code calls for mixed use, and the developer wants to build mixed use... what's the problem? If there's a holdup in that case it ain't caused by the zoning code, it's caused by something else. A development plan can't be non-compliant with a code it complies with. That makes no sense. Address the root of the problem, which is probably some identifiable jerkass administrator... don't just throw us headfirst into anarchy! I won't deny that Cleveland needs to clean things up administratively. On that we're in full agreement.

Yes... I called them up and suggested the tone and content of that piece. They said "my word, 327, it looks like we have no choice here but to accept your airtight logic. Stop the presses!" Oh, and that controversial Aunt Jemima cartoon? My doing. I also convinced the PD to run their "Quiet Crisis" series. I'm also the dead guy who gave that quote to Joan Mazzolini last week. I'm a regular Gail Wynand.

Here's how I would compare the two: Houston is growing because it is the main port of the US oil industry. Ironically enough, that's what put Cleveland on the map too. But the torch has passed to Houston, and rightly so, as it sits near so much of the oil supply. And it's in the sunbelt, which made it a natural destination for aging populations of the north, and it's also right by America's largest source of immigration. I don't think Houston's lack of zoning is what caused its growth, I attribute the growth to these other factors... and if Houston had had some zoning, it might not get so many of the "Really? That's our 4th largest city? Are you joking?" reactions it currently gets. When asked to list off America's main cities, people tend to forget that Houston exists... let alone that it's #4 and climbing. How many nondescript and unremarkable main cities does America need? I also think Cleveland's poor planning, that of the sprawl era especially, has driven people and investment away. America's northern cities can't offer the weather of the south, but they can offer what all successful northern cities of the world offer: a first class built environment that says "screw you, cold... we've not only beaten you, we've done it with style." If Cleveland is allowed to sprawl out randomly like Houston, but without Houston's situational advantages, the result will not be favorable. As illustrated. Cleveland's only shot is to BE a major city... in a way that's instantly and universally recognizable... which requires a world-class built environment. Cold northern cities are successful all over the world, but never by following a sunbelt approach to development. One size does not fit all.

Gramarye if you think Houston is beautiful, moreso than Boston, then yes I believe you may have stumbled upon our essential conundrum.

The zoning laws have failed here because a) to the extent they're sensible and progressive, they're not enforced, and b) many are still based on 50s-60s sprawltastic planning ideals. Given that sprawl in the city is exactly what Cleveland has been going for these past few decades, I'd say the codes have been successful. Not in a good way... but this amply demonstrates the power of zoning codes for good or for ill. Progressive codes like the "Midtown Overlay" have since begun to replace Cleveland's outdated approach, but they're merely window dressing. City hall still can't say no to 50s/60s-minded developers, no matter what the code says (an abdication of duty) and no matter what long term damage may be done. But there are plenty of places where progressive density-centric and historically-minded zoning codes have done great work. Most US cities that people enjoy visiting are good examples. Houston is not one of these examples. What would change my mind? Completely different observable results. A completely different America, one where Houston and Phoenix are pretty but San Francisco and Boston aren't. That's a heavy burden to carry... because planning works, in virtually every human endeavor. Chaos is generally bad. For an example of chaos being bad, I offer Cleveland prior to the development of zoning codes. We put our heaviest industry upriver from downtown (not even Detroit was stupid enough to do that) and we threw up unholy mixtures of homes and factories everywhere. The introduction of a small amount of industry to Euclid Ave essentially tore down 100 mansions overnight and spurred the development of Shaker Heights, a noted precursor to modern sprawl. Look at the original promotional materials for Shaker Heights. They promised order in the face of chaos-- they promised strict zoning-- and they were wildly successful.

^^ I've been laughing for an hour at that axe story. Brings to mind a blurb from the Tribune this past New Years day, in which a pedestrian was struck with a hammer by a man who had pulled up alongside in an SUV, got out, did his hammer business, then got back in and drove off. The victim said he knew his attacker and did not wish to press charges.

What exactly are we asking them to do? What exactly are they doing now that's preventing full function? And... why is this conflict just now coming to light? Why has this situation been so inscrutable for two years now? At this point I think the community deserves to have the entire truth spelled out. Immediately. We were told this thing would zip through lights, it was a core selling point, and apparently that's been administratively impossible this whole time. We don't even know if it'll ever be possible. WTF happened? WTF is going on here?

I don't always agree with Scene either, but they seem to have nailed it this time.

Thanks for the info. The system has been up and running a while now... exactly when did the ball enter this court? How was this issue overlooked back when all the old lights were torn out and replaced with these new ones? That should have been the end of it. This makes it sound like the Euclid Corridor system we were promised hasn't even been installed yet, or hasn't been turned on, or some such. The official rollout was in 2008 wasn't it?

Hellooooooooo Cleveland... this is how it's done. No siding, no plastic, no corrugated aluminum. No bald surfaces. Bricks arranged elegantly, with stone highlights. Texture. Warm earthen colors. Awareness of its location in a cold climate. Above all... height and density!

This is the first time I've heard of Houston as a paragon of quality urban development. That doesn't mean it can't be... just a little surprising. It's an interesting idea I'd like to think about more, though I'm initially inclined to disagree. Market-based approaches rarely address the context of each individual parcel or the needs of the community as a whole. This approach favors what's best for the developer, who of course personally interprets the supply and demand oracle for each parcel they own. Thus we get 1-story industrial parks on Euclid and we have to fight just to get the parking lot put in the rear. If anything, I think zoning needs to be more strict and taken more seriously. What's best for one developer may be harmful to the prospects of every parcel around them. I don't think it's wrong to force developers to address the consequences of their actions before they screw things up for everyone else, including adjacent developers.

The term "rapid" has a generally accepted meaning, both in general and in a transit context. Neither meaning applies to the Euclid Corridor system. Not even close. This is readily observable. I'm deeply concerned that there is cognitive dissonance taking place at RTA with regard to BRT and the success of the Euclid Corridor project. Words have meanings, and so do promises. This signal timing system is a scandal... and RTA's response "no it isn't, everything's fine" will not do. Everything's not fine. The system doesn't work, and given the urban planning taking place along Euclid, and the true intent of the BRT system there, we wasted millions on all those stations. That's not OK. That's a serious screwup we need to avoid repeating. But first we need to look facts in the face... the Euclid BRT doesn't work as advertised, and even if it did, it wasn't an appropriate planning choice to begin with.

In their colonies, the British built railroads from inland natural resources to coastal ports, their purpose being to expedite the relocation of said resources to Britain. They made no attempt to conenct population centers or to encourage commerce among the colonies. That was the last thing they wanted, really. I'm not sure that's what China's doing here. I think they're going for a different kind of dominance, knowing that no one in this century will get away with what Britain did. China is building rail that does in fact serve the population around it. Maybe they don't all want to go to Beijing... but that's still different than Britain's m.o. of rolling into some country, installing a railroad from their mines to the sea, then claiming to own all of it.