327

DC has the same problem as SF, can't build enough supply because towers aren't allowed.

It may depend on how much the feds invested. And Chicago still had airports after that closure, so it arguably didn't hurt anybody, while Public Square's function as a transit hub is irreplaceable and people are already getting hurt.

Superior was open to traffic for 200+ years. That number is not made up. Jackson's numbers are.

That's because New York would never attempt such a thing. Even the most conservative cities are building new rail lines these days, while Cleveland is alone in trying to move its transit system backwards. That is insanity and it must be stopped. Just like with Dimora & friends, we again need the feds to step in and address corruption that we refuse to deal with ourselves. It's embarrassing. Things need to change around here.

That's why I frequent this forum as well. This topic, however, seems to be one where you can only allowed to have one opinion and, if you don't, you're "making excuses" Okay, it's one of the few topics here where I'm probably in the majority (though I would say I wasn't when I first started posting in '07 or so) but it seems to me there's more than a few people taking your approach. It could be that it's so damned frustrating. Politicians that probably know better won't even touch an clear cut case of cultural rot like the Damon Wells incident, and even Zack Reed, who definitely knows better, wants to blame downtown spending instead of gang battles for the increasing murder count. There's a strong argument linking downtown spending (and its attendant opportunity cost) to worsening conditions in the neighborhoods that are now exporting gang violence. Of course this argument only works if one accepts the premise that poverty and segregation are factors in gang activity.

Looks like a full blown disaster right now. I've opposed Jackson and Calabrese for a long time but never imagined they could do this much damage.

Bingo. You have large swaths of Appalachia that is rather poor, and in many instances, worse off than many of the inner cities. These types of mob-rule crimes are unheard of. Unheard of? I have family down there and I can assure you it's quite violent. Difference is nobody cares, because it's contained in an area they'll never see. The urban version is much harder to ignore, plus it has that awkward racial angle.

Thanks for the kind words KJP. Mostly I mean local small businesses that can operate in traditional storefronts. Most of the units need rehabs and then they need tenants, so there would be two levels of subsidy involved. Programs like this have already paid dividends in areas like E 55th and St. Clair. Neighborhoods designed around walking and mass transit require walkable businesses to function. Those businesses serve two purposes by employing people nearby and providing access to goods and services without a car. Take them away and the neighborhood cannot function, it becomes a round peg in a square hole, and blight is the only possible outcome. Demand for the neighborhood plummets because people who want a car-centric lifestyle will always have better options, options designed for that purpose, while people who prefer an urban lifestyle can't find it there. It's really just supply and demand. Neighborhoods for which there's no demand become blighted and produce trouble beyond their borders, so something must be done to stimulate demand. That's the only way to bring in higher income levels, which in turn generates more demand for goods and services. But something has to start that cycle, hence the need for public investment. There's been a big upswing in demand for traditional urban living, among people who have money, but Cleveland's supply isn't marketable because it's lacking a key component of traditional urban living.

^^ Obviously if a city can't provide basic services like police protection, nothing works and nothing will. But if you want more income levels to move into these neighborhoods, they can't be business-free zones. And unlike downtown apartments, public investments in neighborhood businesses can benefit existing residents as well as attracting new ones. They still have street crime in Portland, so nobody is saying this will fix everything. No one plan fixes everything. And some of the problems we're facing are national in scale, like these mall fights. But some aren't and those we have to address locally.

The outbreak in what could be called "audacious" crime began during the 1960s and the "Great Society". There's a balance, too much subsidy of unproductive lifestyles can become a sense of entitlement, leading to lashing out because it's not "enough". Plus, the impact of drugs cannot be discounted. Another perspective on the same thing is "audacious" crimes began when segregation became too much to bear, which was right around the same time de-industrialization began. The Great Society programs were an olive branch which kept things from falling apart but were not, in fact, enough.

Everyone is right because the problems are linked. Concentrated poverty spawns undesirable cultural issues and keeps them in place. When the system rejects people, those people in turn reject the system. We should expect more of this as jobs continue to shrivel and poor neighborhoods continue to crumble. My local solution would be less spending on visitor amenities and apartments for the rich, more spending on resident amenities and businesses in bad neighborhoods.

Dorms are always more expensive than apartments, everywhere you go. Not recommended after freshman year. Parking at CSU can be avoided by living nearby, plus it's well served by transit for those who don't. I've always wondered why there aren't more student rentals along those sidestreets off Payne and Perkins. You want big city culture? Get a place in Chinatown.

Are we certain they didn't control for this in the calculation? It would be silly not to, if they're calling it a daily average. I find it hard to believe there were 1000 daily riders refusing to use the previous station. Maybe there were, I don't know. I agree about E 34 and E 79. I wouldn't add any stops unless they involve extending the line, but that's another can of worms.

Strike four: ineffectual, especially for longer trips, because it stops too often and moves too slow

Of course. It's just that for walking/transit to be much of an option itself, the area has to be set up for it. Skipping any aspect of that messes it up. Nothing about TOD precludes driving though. Why not maximize all the options?

The 3C proposal should have played this up more. As I recall, there was an unwillingness to even consider that service, let alone promote it as a reason to support the plan. I still blame 3C for giving us Kasich in the first place. Tossed him a whiffleball and he whacked it.

Cleveland doesn't have any major CFB programs of its own, so it defaults to OSU. Another factor is that Cleveland is definitively within Ohio, lacking ties to other states. Cincinnati and Toledo are on state borders and both are in the territories of other major CFB programs.

I think it was really about people from conservative states pushing back against Obama. I bet now that Republicans control the federal government, you stop hearing so much about states' rights. It's likely to come up again, in a weed context. Intra-state drug markets, along with the right and wrong of drug use, are almost a bullseye for what states' rights are supposed to entail.

Also, larger administrative areas make it difficult to redline "certain people" out of the polity.

Raising the minimum wage would be great for the economy IMO, but doing so only in Cleveland would have been disastrous for Cleveland. There's no such thing as a Cleveland-specific economy.

Instead of "slowly growing" I would say the demand is established and unmet-- particularly established among the new residents we're trying to attract, i.e. people who are drawn to urban living. As for the definition of TOD, if every aspect of it is optional, that's not a definition at all. Instead it's a term one can attach to various concepts, some of which conflict with each other. The point of having definitions is to avoid that sort of thing. One of the most basic concepts of TOD is the ability of people to function in their daily lives without driving. Walkable retail, in immediate proximity to transit lines, is absolutely essential to that goal. Call something TOD without that and people might rightly question whether TOD makes any sense as a concept.

Tax revenue is a big reason but so is access to retail for urban residents. Aurora and Lodi cannot serve that need, so in that sense it's not a regional issue. The Galleria never had much chance as a traditional mall without an anchor store. Failure by design there. Outlets don't seem as dependent on anchor stores to drive traffic. That being said, it would be great if they included one anyway. And still not clear why this needs to be on the lake. Unique scenery is important for office or residential but meaningless in retail.

Has anyone from the city suggested alternate locations for this outlet center? Just a few blocks south even. It gains nothing from being on the lake and would waste a lot of land that deserves more intensive development. But at the same time, the city needs retail desperately and I don't want to chase this thing away.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should have nothing but a Downtown filled with restaurants and bars but it's foolish to not have it and it's doubly foolish to willingly do something to harm what you currently have No one has proposed reducing or degrading what we currently have. The debate is over how to invest additional money. The more I think about it, the more I think we've spent enough public funds on visitor amenities. Time to start focusing resources on the needs of those who live here.

He says he wants more people living on the lakefront, but his plan ensures that nobody can. We already have multiple lakefront parks. We don't suffer from a lack of them. What our waterfront does lack is good urban development.