327

The economies in Columbus and Cleveland are not comparable in my view. I think this is closer... a building I once lived in. Lafayette Park Towers in Detroit, very very similar to Reserve Square but with significantly more access to retail. You have to call for pricing, which I just did. No deposit, no utilities (maybe electric). One BR 620-820 depending on height and view-- with TWO MONTHS FREE, prorated across the lease, so the effective price is in the 500-750 range. Parking was included when I lived there, didn't remember to ask if it still is. Walk to Renaissance Ctr or Greektown is similar to Reserve Square's walk to WHD or Tower City.

I'm not sure this happens in any major city in the country. And the reason, as X points out is simply that the development economics are different Our posts are crossing in the mail. Interesting discussion. Some of this I address above in an edit. But I'll also suggest that the comparison is inapt because these cities don't have gaping holes in them, not like we do. Also in these cities the denser Lakewood/heights areas tend to abut downtown... and these cities are on a different planet in terms of downtown retail. All things being equal, which I don't think they are, I would fully agree with you.

^ All of that is true, McCleveland. I looked into a studio at Crittenden, which can be had under $500, but found a place off Shaker Square at the same price point with twice the square footage and free parking. I'm not the only one out there making these kind of comparisons and opting away from downtown. As for purchasing a 1br place for 80k... I maintain that there is a very limited market for that sort of thing. It's an odd living arrangement to commit to, for most people. I'm not denying that there is such a market, but I believe we have plenty of offerings already given its depth. Downtown needs housing that can compete directly-- on total price-- with Lakewood and the heights. I firmly believe that would lead to explosive population growth. A lot of that growth would be hi-turnover, i.e. not condo appropriate. And X, that's true too. But there are an awful lot of empty buildings and lots downtown. That's waste, a vaccuum, and nature hates a vaccuum. Free-market economics teahces that this should lead to a steep drop in land prices until equilibrium was reached and things filled in. Think about it, there's plenty of land supply and plenty of demand too. So why are they not meeting up? My answer to my own question: a small number of landowners is holding prices artificially high, so that real estate remains artificially empty. They're unreasonably expecting returns based on a local job market which no longer exists, and hasn't for some time. Free-market economics openly admits that concentrated ownership wrecks the entire concept. It just has a hard time dealing with the real-world implications.

Over $1000 for a 1br? No, not remotely reasonable. $1000/month will get you a fairly decent house in Cleveland, or nearby. An early-career individual with student loans can likely budget $600 tops for their 1br apt. That budget gets you in almost nowhere downtown, especially with parking added on. So far, they've found enough well-off individuals to keep things filling up. I fear that we'll quickly reach the bottom of that barrel.

I'm inclined to believe this one, at least as it's phrased by edale. There has been tremendous growth and it really hasn't slowed down with the economy. I have two concerns though: 1) the stuff being built/renovated doesn't correspond with where the primary demand is, i.e. too much high end and too many condos when the demand is more single renters w/o kids, and 2) deficits in retail and schools which could potentially burst our bubble. Regardless, the success of downtown Cleveland residential deserves a lot more press than it's been getting. I think better publicity could take it to another level in a hurry.

I'd like to believe this report, and I do think Cleveland has done a lot to position itself for growth. That said, I still think we've got outrageous over-valuation here. Maybe not as much as the coasts and sun belt... but don't let that fool you. Those areas don't have large swathes of city that need to be rebuilt. We have a glut of homes in run down neighborhoods for which owner-occupier demand is virtually nonexistant, especially in areas dominated by duplexes. We're facing steep challenges, different challenges than in other challenged areas... and just like a few years ago, false optimism can be dangerous.

^ Good point Punch, the overall heights representation is pretty darned good. And consider that the entirety of ward 6, from Independence up through the 271 corridor, only gets one rep. The urban west side, including Lakewood, gets two, compared to Parma's one. Overall, my count is 6 predominantly urban wards vs. 5 predominantly suburban. I had feared the oppposite. So on those grounds alone, I guess I like the map.

People often call my neighborhood "hood," including the guy who panhandles me as soon as I walk out the door. Besides, I think "hood" is a Latin term... I used to get offended about it myself, but what good does that really do? Federal election law may require majority-minority districts. That means there will be majority-majority districts as well. If you're the minority in your district, it is highly unlikely, by design, that you will ever be elected. Still... I wish it weren't so blatant. I was hoping for something more like pie pieces radiating from downtown.

I've been really anxious to see this. Not sure what to make of it yet... further consideration required. It's really hard to tell if Shaker Square is with the heights or with the hood. That's an awfully squggly border.

Another point my co-worker made is that Brooklyn also just lost Hugo Boss, and the reason is that in order to fund its I-hate-Cleveland city hall, Brooklyn recently tried to raise taxes on these two regional golden geese. It might be that they refused to provide a tax break, I don't know. Either way, Hugo Boss is gone and AG is up in the air. We should all have a say on how employers of this magnitiude are treated... it shouldn't be the sole discretion of Brooklyn City Hall.

I don't disagree with you. But as someone who grew up in Brooklyn, worked for the city for over five years, and still knows many people living there, I can tell you that residents generally look down on Cleveland and will not choose to become part of it. I just got that same line of thought from a co-worker who grew up there. My answer: look at the map of your "hometown." If you choose to "look down upon" Cleveland, which surrounds you on 3 sides, you're certifiably insane. We cannot allow insanity to continue running this town(s). If we're going to save the day here, we will not be able to accomodate every little nugget of hate.

Ward representation at the county level may "soften the blow" for people losing their city hall at the end of the block. To me that's the main thing... it's a step toward a countywide government that still accounts for local interests. Also, the new system would seem to be cheaper on the whole. It gets there partially by eliminating separate elections, and to some degree, separate offices. Authority that was once diffuse will be consolidated, and there will be a one-stop buck-stop office we've never had before. There is a general sense that this singular county executive will be easier for businesses to deal with than the slew of offices we currently have. Under the current system, each of the 3 commissioners is beholden primarily to their ethnicity. Seriously. This rule is obviously unwritten, but very very real. Ain't no balkanization like racial balkanization.

There's a huge, traditional-looking Methodist church on Lee Road just south of the library.

It's probably silly of me to suggest we view our map as a clean slate, giving no credence to Brooklyn's pleas for continued existence. But we're in a radically bad position and I think it will take radical thinking to get out of it. Agreed, the county did vote for regionalism with Issue 6, and it will interesting to see where that starts taking us next year. This preference for tiny fiefdoms is a constitutional problem in Ohio, and it will take a statewide issue to change it. But, to that end, I really think it needs to be discussed in the context of stories like AG. I believe it's time to recognize just how bad this fiefdom model is for business. People tend to think of it on a residential services level but that's only one aspect.

I've met Dale Miller and DeGeeter, both seem like stand-up guys.

I'm not sure about making AG pay taxes to multiple political subdivisions. Once more for the win... why do we need a city of Brooklyn? Why can't that become Cleveland? Here's a test of our true willingness to regionalize. How hard will we fight to maintain a suburb that makes the west side of Cleveland into a narrow spindly thing on the map? Does W117/Memphis really need to encounter four municipalities? Let this be the end of Brooklyn, and Linndale as well. I think it's extremely important to keep AG in the Greater Cleveland Area, and all things being equal I'd prefer they relocate downtown. But I think growth and retention are more likely, in general, if we stop forcing each local company to float a separate city hall, let alone several at once. This region has too much overhead to be competitive and we've just got to reduce it. More broadly: Regionalism means not sweating it when a company wants to move from the west side to the east side, which is how this AG story was originally framed. Regionalism also means, much as it pains us, not sweating it when Eaton leaves downtown but stays in the area. It also means not begrudging Beachwood their happy-ass "corridor." Let people work where they want... and then make the case for tax sharing.

New world record: number of proposed uses for a department store other than "department store." What about the CVB and everything else that's moved or moving into that building? I'd like to see a casino sooner rather than later, so that's still welcome news. I do hope they'll do something about the constant panhandling right in front, though. It's bad enough to have so much of it in front of the CVB, and failing to confront it outside a temporary casino could really bust our bubble tourism-wise.

Re: trucks, are they moving the HQ or that plus production? I'm not sure if they do production at their Brooklyn compound or not. If so, and if they want to keep them together, downtown may not be the best plan for them. That's a whole lotta truck traffic, and printing operations aren't the cleanest things in the world.

I may be mistaken, but I think the reason people keep bringing up the "32 to Euclid" issue is not because they misunderstand RTA's intentions or need for money, it's because it literally seems insane to even propose ending the 32 at the Cedar station when Euclid is right there, given the implications. For the cost of sending the bus a couple blocks further, a route would shift from plumb-useless to manageable for a great many people. Common sense should not require a letter-writing campaign. There is a feeling among the peasants that some of this stuff is not even being thought through. This makes the peasants wonder if their sacrifices are in vain, or perhaps less than fully necessary. Maybe the cuts would go down smoother on the whole if the more brazen WTF? issues were identified and addressed.

What I love is that, in contrast with the gloriousness of the building they're in, these little huts employ tons of Cleveland's worst architectural meme: corrugated aluminum. That helps give it the vibe of a state fair agricultural exhibit. Remember the "Street of Yesteryear" at COSI, back in the 80s? This is the exact opposite.

After the Connecticut ruling, Ohio made it tougher to do this. Can't be done for nebulous economic development purposes. Can't simply be turned over to private developers, even in this sort of context. Hence the earlier discussion about making the Sportsman footprint into a "park" if it had to be taken through eminent domain.

Looks fine to me, I kinda like it. I prefer pointy but I wouldn't call this boring. At least it has multiple textures. Can't wait to have stuff on both sides of that bridge coming into downtown.

First to market was a distributor in Wisconsin, who offers one-stop shopping for various medical products without any sort of convention angle. Honestly, I'm still not clear on how the convention angle meshes with the medical mart angle. Because as far as having people go somewhere to look at health care supplies, that's really nothing new.

I agree, definitely not a racial thing, but... as a man who's never once looked at you, I'm a little unnerved by the... wow... sorry to have brought that up.

R&R... it's all good. Remember though how I repsonded (a while back) when you were talking about how strangers at the gym need to avert their eyes when you pass? Because their simple act of looking at you was bothersome and deserved your scorn? That thread had nothing to do with racism. Which is more hurtful, their desirous glance or your "you have no right to look at me" return glance? If they happen to be of another race, one historically forbidden to gaze upon white women, might that scorn not bite them a little deeper? In that sense, a completely non-racist person might still, unintentionally, racially offend another. I'm guessing if some stranger is giving you desirous eyes, in public like that, they're probably lonely in a way that could never be described. How much does it hurt you when they look? How much does it hurt them when it's obvious to them that the only way they can please you is to disappear? I'm not suggesting you encourage these people or date them (what would Mr. R&R think), I'm suggesting you employ additional empathy when reacting to their offensive gaze. ***Unless they're masturbating... that's messed up*** I realize this all sounds pretty personal... but I don't think you're a racist. I think from what you've posted, over time, that you're a little less comfortable than the average person when it comes to having strangers look at you. I think in the black men / white women on a train scenario, there may be a racial layer involved that doesn't come from either party, that comes instead from the ugliness of the past.