327

McLovin's point remains, since these new developments are of a type that discourages street activity. Open all the windows you want-- nobody will be out there.

No city has an entire Amazon HQ staff just sitting around waiting. Where jobs appear, people move. I'm sure any city in the midwest would gladly build to accommodate the influx. But there would also be a lot of people displaced as housing values shot up. Gentrification would be "a thing" here like never before, and the shift might be big enough and sudden enough to get ugly. Poor folks got driven out of San Francisco gradually but this would be almost overnight.

Their metric factors in the cost of living, which tends to have a negative correlation with available jobs. I'm always dubious of reports that say "CLEVELAND ECONOMY ROCKS" because that contention doesn't pass a cursory glance test. Memphis and St. Louis on the list too... let's just say I wouldn't recommend this study's authors to manage the Federal Reserve.

With very few exceptions, apartments should be allowed throughout the city. It is particularly absurd to ban apartments in areas where there's no suburban tranquility to disrupt. Cleveland's outdated anti-density laws are in need of immediate reform.

This building doesn't fit the city's plan for the corridor. The plan places greater value on vacant lots because it seeks a completely new type of land usage, a usage for which this otherwise highly adaptable structure is not ideal. Bad plans lead to bad results.

I like it well enough. Some have complained about the color but I consider it a strong suit. I also like the apparent complexity of the surface.

The RRHOF is pretty frequently used to portray Cleveland. Typically shot from the rear, where you can't hardly tell what it is, but that's the only angle where it can look like part of (I mean cover up half of) the skyline. Personally I think we should have gone bigger with our Superman statue, and given it a better location.

Moving teams out of Cleveland was a joke premise in 1989's "Major League" and it worked because nobody found it implausible. Then a few years later the Browns really did move away, citing facility problems. So we're skittish about this issue. Yes, we know who we're dealing with and what he's all about. That aspect is beyond our control.

It is possible they're just being proactive.

In either case the street level is what matters most. But just like in Major League, there is no such thing as too high. Too high? Multiple developments in this area were forced to reduce their planned height and that needs to stop. This doesn't mean shorter developments are inherently bad, but anti-height activism most certainly is.

Gosh, if,if,if,if ? If only you got to tell all the companies in Ohio where and how to build their headquarters. The market has spoken and it agrees with me, which leaves the basis of your attack unclear. Because then it would have been a sensible investment, not only for its owners but for the community as well. It would have been adaptable and marketable. This area of town is mostly industry and distribution, so a large office building makes no sense there. Good spot for a truck stop though. Instead here's something so worthless and out of place, and yet so large, that the community has to bend over backwards finding a buyer to maintain it. Moral of the story? Terrible development decisions made by wealthy lunatics often have long term consequences for the rest of us. And that's why they should not be allowed to make those decisions alone. "I can afford to and you can't" does not justify absolute power.

This sort of thing only flies after the labor force has reached a certain level of desperation, one that is common to the modern third world or maybe the Victorian era in the West. One step forward, two steps back.

Nice looking interior. If only they'd built the outside like that too, and built it downtown.

Maybe it should keep going after 9, but only as far as Shaker Square. There's no question the neighborhoods east and west of it have different transit needs.

I don't think so. There's some good stuff happening in UC, but nothing approaching the level of Uptown PGH or Short North. I'd say University Circle has probably seen about the same level of investment as Uptown Cincinnati, which is certainly impressive in its own right. When you cite Pittsburgh's 'Uptown area' you mentioned Shadyside, Oakland, Squirrel Hill and East Liberty. But those are 4 distinct Pittsburgh neighborhoods, of which the closest comparison to University Circle is Oakland and although Oakland has traditionally had greater density and retail the U. Circle, the Circle has really been closing the gap with the emergence of Uptown, Centric, the Marriott Courtyard and all the new townhouse development along E. 118, Little Italy, etc... So if you consider all the development in Cleveland's hottest neighborhoods along with Univ Circle, including Ohio City/Hingetown (tons of townhouses and new retail/restaurants), Detroit-Shoreway (Batter Park, Edison, Waverly Station, etc), Tremont (and up-and-coming Duck Island in between), you could argue it's 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other... This, plus all the development in downtown Cleveland, including the Flats, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Pittsburgh is 'kicking Cleveland's a$$ in any way. The Browns had to have a good draft at some point. Looks like they just did. There's still a wide gulf between them and the Steelers, a gulf which has persisted now for decades, but at least we have reason for hope. Maybe the Browns are finally starting to emulate successful teams, instead of trying to justify ridiculous decisions that no one else would make. There's really no end to this metaphor.

Craft breweries cater to a market segment that is well off. No one is saying that segment doesn't still exist, it's that the segments immediately below them are shrinking as the bottom segment continues to grow. I just moved within Lakewood and was shocked at how much rents have increased since my last search 4 years ago. Rents here had been stable for at least a decade prior but now they're going crazy. Locally, I think some of this reflects the deterioration of the rest of the city and inner ring, sort of a last man standing situation. When other areas fall apart, Lakewood benefits from simply holding on. Nationally, the same pattern repeats. Poor areas are as poor as anyone's ever seen them, and they're spreading, while the remaining desirable areas are seeing rents and home prices skyrocket.

^Below are three explanations of TOD from reputable mainstream sources. According to two of them, Aspen Place is not TOD. According to the third one it might be, but it would not count as "well-done" TOD. Wikipedia definition: "Transit-oriented development, or TOD, is a type of community development that includes a mixture of housing, office, retail and/or other amenities integrated into a walkable neighborhood and located within a half-mile of quality public transportation." TOD.org definition: "Also known as TOD, it's the creation of compact, walkable, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use communities centered around high quality train systems. This makes it possible to live a lower-stress life without complete dependence on a car for mobility and survival." transit.dot.gov definition: "Transit-oriented development (TOD) creates compact, mixed-use communities near transit where people enjoy easy access to jobs and services. Well-done TOD connects transit to desirable places to live, work and visit that feature amenities like entertainment venues, parks, retail, restaurants, an improved pedestrian environment and diverse housing choices."

Indeed. On the bright side maybe one of these late-comers will stick with it and build a base for next time. This time, it seems like no one bothered until they all figured out that no one else was bothering. And by then it was too late.

Another argument in favor is that transformative projects like this can increase the value of other properties which aren't subject to the TIF. Of course this is speculative and impossible to quantify. But that doesn't mean it isn't real. If we accept that "it takes money to make money," and I think everyone does, the question becomes from whom and for whom. If there's a disconnect between those two, we can't be surprised when opposition emerges. And it isn't helpful to respond with childish attacks on the opposition's IQ. For the love of all that is holy, that needs to stop. It only serves to enhance their suspicion that our plan is to screw them over. And whether they've read it or not, the literature indicates they aren't entirely wrong. TIF's shift financial risk from private enterprise to the public. Any financier will tell you that's worth money. Is the public being fairly compensated? Is the public getting a realistic appraisal of the magic beans it's being asked to accept? There's room for honest disagreement on that, especially given the recent history of real estate speculation.

What a Trumptastic argument you've got there. I don't believe Stark's math skills are weak. If he wants this deal, one can safely presume it favors him. He didn't get where he is by handing out money. TIF's are broadly controversial. To be clear, I generally support them but there are always complexities. It's definitely not a smart vs stupid issue. That's not helpful. You know what is helpful? Reading. http://www.governing.com/columns/urban-notebook/gov-tax-increment-financing.html http://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/EOGTIF.pdf https://urbanland.uli.org/economy-markets-trends/tax-increment-financing-tweaking-tif-21st-century/

Uh, what? You're gonna have to back up that claim. Look at it this way: If the school system wasn't taking a hit, why would there be a controversy? And why would Stark push an arrangement that involves him paying the schools more? He wouldn't.

I used to support him but I've changed my view based on myopic decisions like this one. Nucleus is the kind of development that could increase property values citywide. Also a huge swathe of city and inner ring residents who aren't in Amazon's market. Home delivery is great when you live in a secure $2k apartment with concierge service and hi-speed internet. When all you have you have is a porch off Kinsman and a gas station cell phone, cutting-edge lifestyle trends don't necessarily apply. Those people might not be thrilled about subsidizing another development that only sells expensive drinks.

Of course public transit is a social program-- a very effective one, hence its ubiquity. If social program has become a derogatory term, therein lies our problem.

There seems to be an assumption here that all speed limits are inherently sensible, and yet they vary from place to place. Is Columbus more dangerous than Cleveland due to higher speed limits on similar roads? Do fatality statistics bear this out? Is Linndale safer because its tiny stretch of Memphis Ave is 25 instead of 35? I would venture that Brooklyn and Cleveland are safer because they ban phone calls and texting.

Lecture you? He just got out of jail! Perhaps his attitude is holding him back.