327

While there is decent amount of open space, there isn't any well-planned open space. If there were at least a small quad that was surrounded by dorms that opened up to it, you would encourage more lively interaction. CSU needs some kids with frisbees and hacky-sacks who will enjoy hanging out on campus. I agree that we need more diverse uses on Euclid, but that is all part of the plan. CSU needs both if it wants to move towards a residential college that creates a lot of vibrant street life. I would rather see mixed-use than open space, and if it's to be open space I certainly don't want bare grass. A nice quad surrounded by dorms would work. That is, something mid-block and surrounded by buildings. NOT another suburban lawn fronting a major downtown street. Grass for the sake of grass, which most "green space" seems to be these days, is no good at all. That we have too much of throughout the city. Unfortunately the majority of Euclid through there is already developed, much of it with ugly buildings that don't belong. So we're only talking about the area to the north.

Columbusite, maybe we agree on the big picture and only diverge on the bits. I can't cycle at the moment. Long story. But I was on a bus yesterday and watched a troop of cyclists come within inches of committing mass suicide by means of that bus. They darted right in front of it. The driver was very shaken. If there is to be a significant increase in urban bike traffic, which I'm not against, I think we will need a new level of coordination. I don't see reduced car speed as a part of that balanced breakfast. I'd like to see some streets narrowed too, for the same reasons you do, as soon as mass transit capacity increases. I think more compromises, like bike lanes, could alleviate some of the safety problems for cyclists. Although it did appear these bikers yesterday were trying to reach an awkwardly placed bike lane. There are inherent risks in operating a bike alongside cars and car speed has little to do with it. It would help if cars went the same speed as bikes, but that's not realistic. 25 mph still leaves a significant speed gap, and whenever you have a speed gap you have passing. Cars have to switch lanes to pass bikes. Every lane switch introduces chaos and creates a potential accident. Speed does not cause accidents, but lane switches do, in a big way. Very few bikers I've encountered here stop at stop lights, so the same traffic has to dance around them over and over and over. Also, a bike may not be visible at the moment someone in a parked car looks back to see if it's safe to open the door. This is often because bikes do not stay in an ascertainable or predictable lane. Predictable movements prevent accidents. Car speed is irrelevant to pedestrians getting hit, because legally they never share the same time-space. Any time a pedestrian is hit, either the pedestrian or the car is somewhere they weren't supposed to be. Someone went when they should have stopped. That has absolutely nothing to do with speed. Bikes are more vulnerable than pedestrians because instead of being separate and predictable, they move randomly through shared space. Cut that and you cut accidents. The non-highway arterials I described earlier would probably not be the best place for a bike at rush hour, although peds could still use the sidewalks and crosswalks as safely as they can anywhere else. But these particular roads would be set up mainly for car traffic and car oriented development like drive-thrus and Applebees and Valvoline places. By putting this stuff in a specific place, along the arterials, other denser areas can have much less of it. Right now we're in no position to eliminate cars or much of the crap that goes with them. What I'm suggesting is the "hope to contain it" method.

Plus they keep the cargo dry. As much as I dislike minivans (in traffic), they are a lot more practical than SUVs or pickups under most terrain conditions. Part of my attitude toward SUVs comes from their association with suburban living. Great attention paid to selfish isolationist convenience; no consideration of its effect on others.

80s and earlier Japanese cars were made of substandard metals. That's why it's so hard to find a decent Datsun 280Z, which I want very badly. My first car was a 1988 Cavalier that had over 190k, ran perfect, and felt extremely solid. I now drive a 2003 Corolla that shakes like the dickens on the freeway. The motor is good and everything works, but it isn't what I'd call solid.

Good point. But how did people survive before SUV's? Families are smaller now. Yet when we look at traffic footage from the 70s, it's mostly cars. Now it's mostly trucks. When I started driving in the early 90s, it was rare to be surrounded by trucks on all sides. Now it's the norm. I understand there are practical reasons for them, I just don't understand how it's the only way people can live. We largely did without them before.

^ Vans and Suburbans/Broncos existed in the height of the station wagon era, probably for this reason. Sometimes you're really just busing people and you do need something big enough. But I see these things driven around all the time now with one or two occupants. I was little, but it seems like it was less common in the 70s for people to drive their bus-type vehicles on a daily basis. For example we had an old van, but nobody drove that to work or to get groceries.

I think everyone had a wagon in the 70's. To me the SUV is the "new" station wagon. Right, and we should go back to the low profile version. These new crossover things are a step in that direction. Another safety issue with SUVs, also related to their excessive height, is how their headlights shoot right into your mirror or into your face.

I was just down there and people acted like this project would never ever happen. I don't think they realized it already is happening.

^ Apparently these are legit problems with station wagons, but I think the safety comparison to SUVs is still favorable. Especially when everyone else's safety is considered... not just the SUV passengers. I've had more than one person tell me the view and the sense of power they get in an SUV is such that they can never go back to a regular car.

"MMPI officials stated again this week its preference for the mall site, despite continuing pressure from Forest City Enterprises to put the project on land the firm owns behind Tower City." This key sentence appears to be inaccurate. MMPI did not state a preference, they outright rejected the tower city site. They made clear that site selection is really no longer an issue. It's almost as if the PD doesn't read itself.

What ever happened to good old station wagons? The proverbial family truckster? Those were designed to haul large families, plus their stuff, without flipping over or blocking out the sun.

I guess that's why standard components have to keep cutting their weight but the cars don't get any lighter.

Me too. They block everyone else's vision to enhance their own. Personally I think all cars should be 70s pimp cars. If you don't like the mileage take a train. But if you must drive, do it in style.

I can't wait to read FCE's written response about the view behind tower city. All they can do is pretend they don't own that wasteland and hope nobody checks.

Always look on the bright side... Economic woes slow US migration from rust belt to Sun belt http://www.wkyc.com/news/world/news_article.aspx?storyid=109585&catid=22 WASHINGTON -- The latest U.S. Census figures show the nation's economic crisis has many Americans deciding to stay put in rust-belt cities such as Cleveland and Pittsburgh. ...

I don't have data from a weigh-off, but I'd be really suprised if todays' Impala weighs more than an 80s one that contains a 305 and two couches. Or a 90s Caprice, like the cops always had. That thing is a tank compared to a modern impala. Cobalt v. 80s Cavalier? Corolla v. Chevette? Maybe I'm cherry picking. But I used to work with a lot of automotive component suppliers, and they said they had to cut cost and weight annually. Edit: It's closer than I thought... 1990 Caprice 3693 lbs; 2009 Impala 3649 lbs Edit2: I was wrong on the compact... 1990 Cavalier 2436 lbs; 2009 Cobalt 2991 lbs

Does everyone realize that League Park is already being refurbished? It's not proposed, it's underway. All questions about whether that should be done have been answered in the positive, some time ago. So a field at CSU would be highly redundant. This isn't a question of where we should build one, it's a question of whether we should build another. Go ahead, tell the student body that Hough is so bad CSU has to build it's own single-purpose facility. That will not help sell CSU, because Hough is very very close to it.

I agree, and I'm not trying to ban them. But I do think they're a natural safety hazard, and on top of that many riders in Cleveland disregard traffic signals and weave around unpredictably. They complain that no one respects them but they ride as if no one else exists. None of this justifies lower speed limits, that's my point.

Modern cars don't weigh anything compared to old ones. SUVs are heavy, sure, but compact for compact, sedan for sedan, everything is much lighter now.

I'd like to see more trees than grass. It's the forest city. Anything but another sports facility downtown. I like them but we have plenty and it's a cop out. I wish 18th had something other than a giant white bubble there for half the year. Move that over by the freeway, after they move the freeway.

I thought the eventual hotel was to go there. It's not in the renderings. Is that not part of the deal? The deal would sound better if they could tie in further development for a new HQ. Put it behind Tower City! No reason the county can't be vertical. And then they have connectivity.

I haven't heard of this guy before today, but it sounds possible that he did a lot of this for the wrong reasons. His idea of improved lifestyle maybe wasn't inclusive. So is he to be reviled for the mark he left? He seems to get off easy.

League Park is getting renovated and events are being scheduled there. So not everyone is afraid of it. It is a step down in safety from CSU main campus. That can be addressed, and holding more events will begin to improve the situation around there. Why build a similarly sized venue a couple miles away? And I also don't want half the campus taken up with sports facilities. We have the rec center, the convo center, the soccer field, some tennis courts... lots of that already for a tiny campus. The rest needs to be residential/commercial, or green.

The debate of "to be socialist or not to be socialist" is what a lot of economic issues come down to, if not all of them. Your take on socialism is likely to determine whether you see payday lenders as a problem or a solution.

I'm afraid our positions diverge a great deal on these issues. For one thing, I'm not sure I want to encourage cycling as urban transportation. Their speed makes them incompatible with cars and with pedestrians. How many different lanes, observing different traffic laws, do we really want? I don't think I share your vision for having pedestrians deal with multiple vehicle types in the same space. I also don't think forcing people to drive slow will make them want to patronize businesses they don't patronize already. We can build vibrant walkable neighborhoods without needlessly hindering cars. While the idea is definitely to have people shop more locally, that idea doesn't trump all other concerns. One concern is that something you may need is neither in your hood nor accessible via freeway. It isn't practical to take care of all needs in all hoods, so free movement among them is necessary for any to flourish. That requires various modes of transportation working in harmony. People need to walk more. Transit should be expanded. Development should encourage these modes over driving. None of that requires cars or trucks to be intentionally inconvenienced. The best way to encourage urban development is to make it inviting, to dispel the notion that living in a tighter community is unpleasant. Aggressive speed limits are something I view as a move in the opposite direction. While I'm not as familiar with Columbus, I actually think several Cleveland streets should be raised 25 to 35, or 35 to 45.