327

^ This demo was approved some time ago. I'm similarly upset about it. It's as if nobody at all is minding the store around here... and if they are, they're giving all comers the matador treatment... ole!

All of the above. It's basically the same attitude that pushed the demolition of the Warehouse in the 70's, Prospect around East 4th and then around East 14th: not recognizing the value and potential of existing structures and demolishing them for lesser "usage." It's funny that you talk about the robustness of a neighborhood and economy, but one could argue if they didn't have this obsession of demo to begin since the 1960's, this structure and neighborhood may have had a chance to add to both the neighborhood and economy. Now we simply saying this attitude should continue because we'ev torn down everything else that was worthwhile. Great short sighed theory that shows there is no citywide agenda when it comes to dealing with this common situation. The only question is what's the next one to come down? And the idea of a central park? Please. Central to what? Open pastures and suburban style industrial park buildings? I'd rather not. Good stuff, w28th. I'm not sure this particular building was worth saving at this point, but I've had it with "greenspace" proposals replacing urban density. How on earth does ruralizing Euclid Avenue capitalize on the 24-7 transit system we just built there? Gag me with a ladle.

^ greyrat I completely agree with your tax abatement idea-- we're currently doing it backwards and thus encouraging "Random Demolitions."

Of course not. Your answers are clearly best for all of us. I was merely suggesting that the discussion should probably not end at "what is everyone's first impulse?"

We should choose whichever option is most likely to function most reliably, for the longest time, with the least amount of maintenance. This is a bridge, not a statue or a piece of jewelry. I'm not saying it has to be ugly or stricly utilitarian in appearance. But E and F look... precarious. There has to be a reason drawbridges don't tend to look like that.

The vast majority of kids don't want to go outside. Therefore, the vast majority of kids should not have to go outside. Ever. Just play video games. Whatever our basest, most nonsensical and destructive whim might be, that is precisely what we should do. Because we're all 5 years old.

They have made some positive policy changes in recent years, and they deserve to receive some goodwill for it. Still, the goodwill deficit remains, and it's hard to escape the notion that unrelenting public pressure was a big motivator in Walmart's sudden (how long have they been around?) sense of urban social consciousness. This indicates to me that the pressure needs to continue. We might yet make responsible citizens out of Walmart.

My best guess is that while rail could be part of the alternative, do not expect a big step backwards. Personal conveyances will always be favored by over public. The answer is in how we power them. ...a big step backwards? I'm not sure that's what rail represents. I don't doubt that personal conveyances are a necessary part of the transportation system, but big-picture-wise a move toward the center, toward alternatives to personal conveyances, seems to be in order at this time. Right now video games are favored over outdoor activities, so does that mean we should just roll with it and charge headlong into Wall-E world? Not really.

You can in Ohio. We're known for that.

Bookie? Sports team? How about NOT locking up the entire fuel budget for the year... i.e. leaving some to fluctuate along with the market, in case prices happen to go down. That's how you bet on prices going down. That's another form of hedging. Conversely, betting the farm on "Red" is incompetence, unless one has some seriously powerful foresight. Hindsight is indeed 20/20, and the point is that you shouldn't put all your (or the county's) eggs into one basket. Edit: the futures contracts urbanlife describes are another good approach.

Awesome, a "Dirty Laundry" reference. So true. We all need to bail on the PD, as it bailed on us years ago. Eventually we will outnumber these people... and even if we don't, our positivity can drown them out. What's important is keeping our counter-message as close to the forefront as possible. After all, the other side has a major newspaper at its disposal.

KJP, that's not hedging. RTA put all their (our) money on one expected outcome without anticipating any other possiblility. To hedge would mean to place an additional bet on prices going down, alongside the bet they placed on prices going up. Hedging is a more conservative tactic and perhaps more appropriate for public funds. The potential gain would be lower but so would the potential loss... which has now become an actualized loss against which we have no recourse.

Mike

Mine is people who drive 25 in a 45. Wake up, Gertrude.

The ocean also works by creative destruction. That doesn't mean we're all going to wander out into the riptide. However, you can if you want to.

Hedging in the opposite direction? Please explain that and how it's done. Show me some evidence or company's that have it both ways. No.

Exactly which economic theory are we talking about? Pure capitalism? It most certainly does ignore scale, by assuming that no individual player can affect the market as a whole. If we're talking about a regulated mixed economy, then no it typically does not ignore scale. But you're asking our economy to ignore Walmart's scale and the detrimental effects thereof. I'm not sure we can keep doing that.

I haven't looked at this suit, but if that article is correct, Lakewood sued over a failure to fully respond to a public records request. Nothing wrong with that. But I agree that Lakewood is barking up the wrong tree if they want their circulators back. At the same time, I think RTA has made some missteps that haven't been fully explained. Locking in that fuel price-- without hedging in the opposite direction-- wasn't exactly their finest hour. If the community is suffering higher fares and less service as a result, the community has a right to be upset.

Walmart can drive any small competitor out of business because Walmart has the advantage of scale, a problem that basic capitalism theory ignores. Walmart didn't provide anything "better" except pricing. And yes, Walmart's low prices are illusory. The margin people think they're gaining is actually disappearing from their own income. Where does it end up? Part of it goes to the Walton family et al, while the rest goes to the treasury of the PRC.

327 is visiting his mistress in South America. But before embarking he moved into Cleveland city limits and voted against Frank Jackson. Jackson has been mediocre, scoring on some drives but fumbling badly on too many others. This administration's priorities are amiss. Cleveland needs a more aggressive approach to development, and it needs a more coherent plan with a more coherent spokesman.

[shooting for a post count of 2327.] Sherman is right, and the source is everyone I've ever talked to. People generally support hi-speed rail but could care less about rail at 79 mph. We already drive that fast on I-71. Ask someone in Japan and they probably see it the same way (79 mph = meh). Concrete plans to get us past 79 mph ASAP would help sell the 3C project... we need some sort of admission that 79 mph trains aren't expected to excite anyone. I think Sherman is also right about the political approach. You change culture by convincing people that you understand and respect the culture they already have. At least, that's how you do it if you want it done quickly and smoothly.

OK that's enough. I don't know what definition of moderator involves openly bashing forum members. If you think I'm the only one upset about this, you're wrong. No adult should ever be spoken to in that manner. You guys need to tone down the bullying. And I need some time away from all this fun. MTS is back... I'm sure he'll keep things interesting. If I get banned for life or something, I want everyone here to know how much I've enjoyed your company. Live long and prosper. :-)

[cringes] So... am I actually off topic, or do you disagree enough with what I have to say that you want me to stop saying it? Either way, I'll do what you ask. But please tell me-- and stop insulting me. All you did in that post is attack me personally and make fun of my idea in a very unprofessional manner. I really wish we could discuss the thread topic instead of having everyone hear (yet again) what you think of me. [cringes]

Look, if a MOD says I'm off topic I must yield to them. I know that. But when we're spending this much time and effort determining what's off topic and what goes where-- and attacking each other personally-- it takes away from any meaningful discussion. Once again, I'm jumped without basis and without explanation. I go to the trouble to explain why I honestly thought I was on topic here (this is not a development or news thread), and all I get is more trouble. This all started when I asked, without taking a stand, for someone to explain the critical mass theory because I don't get it. That's the gosh dang title of the thread. That was met with... something, but not something responsive to my fully on-topic question. I thought the fault mine, in not asking a precise enough question about the thread topic, so I expanded on my misgivings regarding the theory discussed on the first page of this thread, which is where I had been referred. But of course, 327 is the bad guy. It's easier that way. Whatever. I really would like to discuss the thread topic with anyone who's interested.

punch, I respectfully disagree, while admitting that I'm not skilled in the art of topic identification. If one believes, based on evidence, that critical mass cannot be reached without addressing retail, that would seem to be entirely on topic. There wouldn't be a critical mass thread if we all knew for certain how to get there, so I don't see the value in dismissing any reasonable theory at this point. How can one examine the situation in Cleveland without comparing it to other cities? That's generally how theories are tested, how science is done. You're telling me we have to discuss it some other way? What way? Making up numbers? Look at the first page. Nobody knows where these numbers come from, other than Ned Hill. Call it the "Ned Hill's Number" thread... then I'm off topic. Actually, if I'm engaging Hill's theory by disagreeing with it, please explain to me how that's off topic. Instead you're telling me I can't cite evidence. Everything you claim is off-topic is either direct evidence for a point I'm making about the thread topic, or is part of the complex issue the thread topic represents. I think the other people besides me who also discussed these issues here, and in other threads about downtown development, also see at least some connection between parts of downtown and developing downtown. The connection between suburban competitors to downtown and developing downtown. The connection between how development policies have worked in other cities and how they might work in our downtown. Are you claiming none of these things belong in a discussion of building the population downtown? What does? Why must Cleveland be examined only in a vaccuum, only in a hypothetical world where no other ideas, no other counterexamples exist? The only ideas we can discuss here must come from CSU or Cleveland City Hall? Anything else is off-topic? That's what off-topic means? Are you serious? We're discussing how to get to critical mass, and you don't like my theory, so it's off topic? You're trying to dismiss my theory without addressing it, by claiming that discussing a magic number nobody can specify or justify is the only on-topic way to discuss downtown growth. Come on. All you're really saying is that there is one acceptable theory and all others are stupid. When I first asked the question this morning, you snarkily told me my questions were answered on the first page. Show me where. I read it 3 times. All I see are assertions about a theory, assertions about magic numbers, and no explanation of how they're derived or how the theory applies to any real world city.