327

mrnyc I like those plans too, all of them. I'm less enamored with the Towpath Trail, but I still like the idea. It just fits into my category of "let's do that later, after we've rebuilt some neighborhoods and restored downtown." But it's a cool idea, as is the entire trail network city hall currently envisions. And the concept of showing movies on the clouds is mind-blowing. Can't happen though... I'm sure the FAA or someone wouldn't like it, even if it were physically possible. Is it?

I would hesitate to kick people out of section 8 completely, because then what? We don't want them all living at bus stops and we can't fit them all in jail. I would also differentiate between Outhwaite and downtown. The latter instance really cries out for an end to the clustering, as does Ohio City. Outhwaite is such a large cluster I'm not sure what can be done with it. Cleveland has very few hi-rise projects, instead they're built in quasi-suburban fashion and take up large sections of the city. Maybe one way to cluster more effctively is to make it more vertical. Does that solve much? No. But it would reduce the sheer land area occupied by projects, which would open up a near-equal amount of land area to some other type of development. On the other hand, I've heard nothing but bad about hi-rise project living. For one thing they're probably harder to police. Plus CMHA tends to put singles in the hi-rises, which means not families, which probably leads to additional crime.

Yes, I know plenty of people who have never been to Chicago and would be quick to run with that perception if it was drilled into their minds repeatedly by Forbes lists posited as front page Yahoo and MSN articles. I would venture that both are true. Cleveland really does have problems, and prominent weekly national criticism perpetuates these problems a great deal. The first time, it's information. It's not like they're lying. But the 10th time they broadcast the same "information" it's clearly a smear campaign. Smear campaigns can be very effective.

clevelandideas.com = Lame. Go look if you don't believe me. clevlelandidea #2 is to "tear down empty buildings and replace with green space" while #3 is titled "use the darn lake." I like the prominence of their no-bashing provision, but otherwise it looks like kindergarten compared to UO. I was hoping to get ideas that are a bit more educated and thought out. The joke ideas here are better than many of their serious ones.

Actually I was hoping to reduce the need for babysitting in other threads. I'm not the only one who goes off topic. Topic boundaries aren't always clear, and even though the topics are helpful 98% of the time, they're occasionally cumbersome. I've seen other times that news threads begat separate discussion threads, so it's not exactly unprecedented. To differentiate this from the examples you posted, in no way is it intended for venting sans solutions. Many solutions can develop from venting, but the idea is to focus on the solutions here and keep the venting to a necessary minimum. The other one as you said wasn't city specific-- a problem-- and was also focused more on problems than solutions. This thread asks for solutions even if you don't see any specific problems that call for them. Maybe it's just an idea you think would help the community and ought to be given a try.

If fixing socio-economic ills is what you would do, then yes that's what it's about. If you think they don't sell enough ice cream or ferrets around here, this would be the place to take your stand. Beyond that... it's meta. If you have a point to make about relationships between several projects at once, when each has it's own thread, maybe try this. If a development story opens up a theoretical quandry, this thread can keep the news thread clean. I like the way the forum is run in general. To the extent that I might see this or that differently, I would prefer to engineer a work-around rather than to debate or ignore the rules. This particular experiment is not off to a rousing start... I was just hoping to hear more ideas like the ones from the General Business thread earlier today, and the Rockometer thread. Each opinion on the Rockometer is based on a set of assumptions and goals that are worth exploring individually. Or not. It's not always apparent until the middle of the discussion.

Yoru preferences all have a Lakewood ring to them. I would definitely look at it, if you're not already familiar with it.

Not backtalk, just a window on my thinking: I'm still working on my topic boundary recognition. It's more of an art than a science. Three items are listed in the title of this thread and General Business is one of them. It didn't seem like a project-specific thread. These posts all revolved around getting businesses to stay or relocate here, so it seemed OK on the surface.

Somehow you found the only possible non-answer to an open question.

Ha!

Open question.

An hour ago there were 15 people reading this discussion, regardless of thread title. This may or may not work, but I'll try making a separate thread for it.

Just imagine if Short Vincent was still going too.

That first question is quite a monster. Healthcare seems to be in the lead right now. I don't know if anyone agrees on anything beyond that. It's a work in progress... To your second question I would say Lakewood, unequivocally.

Those seem at least somewhat worthwhile. Not as helpful as improving lighting and police presence, but at least they address quality of life. I was talking more about physical investments in the neighborhoods. I remember several instances of let's add green space and bike/hiking paths. Don't get me wrong, these aren't bad ideas at all. Well, I could do without any more green space. But we shouldn't be spending time and energy on those sorts of things before addressing all the decrepit buildings and lawlessness.

Most people, if asked, are likely to want money spent right next door to their house as opposed to anywhere else. That doesn't make it the best idea. Another problem is that scant resources can be hard to spread out so far with any real effect. The mayor is currently going the spread-it-out route, and several years back he released a set of goals and planned investments for each neighborhood. You can find it on the city's website. While I like all the goals, the actual investments are so dinky in each one that it won't change a thing. IIRC the biggest thing on the list is the Gordon Square street/utility upgrade. That one's not bad, but they pretty much go downhill from there. Too minor to have significant effects. Plus, they don't solve our overarching structural problems, like poor services and a dysfunctional downtown.

I agree. Inner city neighborhoods were built to be dependent on downtown. They were built on the assumption of a strong downtown. Ours no longer fills its role as a commercial center and as a result none of the neighborhoods can prosper. I would continue to target resources toward downtown until it's up and running again. I would spend most of my neighborhood money on transit to link them with downtown in the manner originally intended. In short, the way forward is to be a big city again.

I was struck by lightning. Publicized plans seem to focus on the cliched "attractions" instead of the meat and potatoes of building city for city's sake. We have enough recreational options. We have enough to make comparable cities jeolous, yet we're still sinking. We need to start replacing all the big city we've ripped out. The kind of outsiders who could be willing to pioneer our urban revival are looking for a big city feel, and only by building big city where we once had it can we truly compete to have them move here. Quality of life issues are big too, and resources spent on additional cutesy amenities are resources that could have been used on sorely lacking basic services.

Right. I agree. We should do that reconnecting by means of dense mixed-use urban development, rather than with trinkets and more green space. We also can't forget how important the lake has been and will be economically. I think moving the port to 55th and focusing on modern industry in that immediate vicinity is the best lakefront idea I've yet heard. Outside of that area, especially on the former port grounds, we get to build acres and acres of new city. All of that, I think, beats the heck out of lining up some trite "family" attractions.

The problem with spending money on a merry-go-round is that the lack of one is not the #1, #2, or #435 top reason why people don't want to raise kids in the inner city. To build the merry-go-round anyway is to display ignorance of how serious the other problems (safety, schools, retail, housing stock) truly are. I'm optimistic about the success of true urban development in Cleveland. I'm not optimistic about our being able to compete with mountainous or coastal regions in terms of outdoor recreation. It will never be an effective selling point, not when they have us so clearly beat. I would refer you to some of the "moving to Cleveland from the west" discussion last week. I'm not saying outdoor life is a liability here. It's fine. I'm saying it will never be a grand lever of recovery for us. We're spending a lot of scarce money upgrading and planning for upgrades of this general nature, when we ought to be focused on rebuilding our major city as a major city.

I don't know about your jurisdiction, but in Ohio my understanding is that TIFs cannot be used to upgrade private property. They are used to upgrade public property which surrounds and supports the private development. This would include things like streets, curbs, lighting, other utilities, landscaping, security, public parking, etc.

We?? There is not silver bullet, for any city. Like the general population, I don't feel you should assume that is how the majority of people in the city/county/region feel. I'm only talking about the leadership. I have no idea what the general population thinks. The leadership can be judged on their public statements, the ideas they dismiss and the ideas they put their weight behind. Ideas that bubble to the surface and get serious consideration tend to be a bit home-run touristy. Prime example is Campbell's lakefront plan. It had a merry-go-round. Several other outdoor recreational projects, of various types and scales, have gotten serious play. While I like most of these projects a lot, I think the resources could be better spent. We can't compete with Denver or Utah or NC in terms of outdoor recreation. So why not instead focus on what we can do well, which is to provide a classic urban experience. We also make machine parts and we're good at it. The tendency to lean on touristy projects is probably true everywhere, but I think the author was pointing out that these solutions are even less appropriate here because they play to regional weaknesses instead of strengths. It's a theory and I think it has some merit.

Obviously some hard right wing commentary by Mr Klotkin there, the kind that is never likely to favor this region. However I agree with his nutshell take on what Cleveland should and shouldn't do. We are too eager to write off our base of industrial knowledge, and we expect too much from home-run touristy projects. He may have misunderstood the MM/CC project, if that's what he's referring to, because the MM part is a much bigger deal that the CC part. That isn't about tourism, it's about hi-tech manufacturing.

You're making a lot of sense. No reason to get hung up on the appearance at this stage-- it's more about the concept. I'm a little squeamish on the concept too, but it has enough potential it shouldn't be so easily dismissed. Enthusiasm alone can't make a bad idea good (see: mountain bike park in midtown)... however this idea has some merit and the guy's enthusiasm should count for something.

Good points all. I had predicted Corner Alley would fail. I underestimated the pull bowling could have on an upscale crowd. So I think the analogy is a good one, and it does make me wonder if I'm wrong about this project too. Although... it does seem a step beyond Corner Alley in terms of risk. Corner Alley is in a stately old building, surrounded by several others similarly renovated, which I think gave it some room for experimentation. This would be new construction on the lakefront. It's tacky in every way, top to bottom, rather than being a normal bar with a tacky-chic hook.