327

Good architecture is better than bad, no doubt. But whatever our goal, there are more effective ways to spend $38 million on a community college. I would focus investment on functional and educational enhancements, particularly in areas like industrial tech where a CCC degree might be the only one you need. Students pay way too much and adjuncts make way too little. People first. $38 million to tear down walls and replace them with different walls is an awful lot.

I would agree with this. This is true all the way from Richmond Rd. to downtown. Green Rd., Warrensville Center, Lee Rd., and E. 55th St. can all, be a mess at rush hour. But the Opportunity Corridor does little if any to solve this problem. Also, Cedar/Euclid Hts./Mayfield/Fairmount is a mess, as well as North Park Blvd. Again, these problems will not get better because of the Opportunity Corridor. To me, it feels like this road is a solution in search of a problem. "The problem" is all those cars using 55th because it's part of the current zigzag path between the UC area and the west side. This road won't solve any bottlenecks east of UC, but it will greatly assist people traveling between the heights and the west side, which will benefit the Coventry and Cedar-Lee business districts as well as their western counterparts.

I've had problems on 55th, coming and going from 490. Close one lane of 55th and things can get ugly. There are plenty of E-W options from downtown but thru streets running N-S are very limited.

Lakewood does well attracting and retaining families with kids, without having to replace any of its dense neighborhoods with greenspace. I can think of 3 playgrounds/rec centers withing walking distance of my place, 2 in Lakewood and 1 in Cleveland. So it's not like we don't have those things already. While we can always do better, I don't think lack of greenspace is keeping many folks away. Maybe a few, but are those the new residents we're going after, the ones who think it's too urban here? Better off being the best city we can be and attracting residents who prefer that lifestyle, for themselves and their kids. Cleveland and its inner ring will never be able to compete with the exurbs on exurban benefits. But remaining distinctly urban allows us to offer something they don't.

Adding greenspace is not the answer. That leads to more maintenance cost and less tax base, while making neighborhoods less walkable. If we need to rebuild, what we build needs to be at least as dense as before.

The plan for downtown's revitalization has been almost entirely residential, and almost entirely upper-class within that. High-end residential neighborhoods don't generally have transit hubs right in the middle, so obviously the only answer is to restructure both downtown and the entire transit system.

$50 million to tear up a park, and replace it with a different park, only to immediately tear it up again because the people in charge didn't really want what they were buying. Hadn't even bothered to think it through. Again, $50 million.

They almost tore down the entire West End maybe 15 years ago. More recently the other end of town was supposed to get an Applebee's. I am so glad none of that took place. Lakewood's planning mindset seems to have improved in the years since. There's a vacant lot at the corner of Newman and Madison, right where Birdtown peters out. Two blocks from the Rapid. Hopefully if this strip keeps improving there will be some interest in developing TOD there.

Unfortunately, if you oppose that project you oppose housing built specifically for LGBT seniors. I was at the Lakewood Democratic Club meeting where the funding was announced; there was much rejoicing. Questions of urban design or TOD simply did not enter into it. If they're ever going to, those standards need to already be in place before somebody proposes single-use. Absolutely. Mixed-use planning is a core concept of TOD. There is TOD and there is not TOD. There is no "TOD enough."

Cut out enough people and there's no market left for anything. Automation doesn't want money but it doesn't spend money either. The next wave will really make this clear, if it isn't already. There's no such thing as a linear economy.

As soon as artificial intelligence becomes real, this discussion becomes racist. "What are you doing... Dave?"

There are probably elements of both at this stage. Given the amount of ground it covers, this is not exactly a commuter line. If making people happy isn't a high-level goal then it needs to be.

I miss Blockbuster for those reasons (picking something out was an event) and because they contributed to the local economy. Yes, it might be time to reconsider how many jobs we really want machines to replace.

What did Polensek say? I agree, this all comes off as a publicity blitz with a strange amount of force behind it.

It is somewhat problematic for construction workers to be unionized when most renters and buyers aren't, but that analysis could go in either direction. So have we reached a point where major urban construction is only feasible for doctors and executives on one end, and indigents on the other end? It seems a little off for poor cities to be subsidizing homes for doctors and executives. That's what we're talking about, if high rents are a requirement in addition to subsidy. I can see wanting to bring those residents in, sure, but it doesn't seem like a sustainable plan. And if we're talking downtown and hospital-area workers, those people are already paying city income tax regardless of where they live, so there isn't much to be gained fiscally by getting them to change their address. And unless they can do their shopping within the city, a lot of their income is still going elsewhere. Sounds like the same thing we did on a national scale during the housing bubble, except in that case the subsidies involved new roads, utility hookups and runoff management. But it was still a matter of everyone paying in so developers could maximize profits by building high-end products for the high-end market... a market which turned out not to be so large.

I'm curious too about "high costs" and don't understand why they would be higher than anywhere else. Wages and costs of living around here are notably low, so that can't be it...?

I was pricing a move to Columbus a few years back, and found I would need to pay a ton more in rent to match my Lakewood neighborhood. Biggest problem is the lack of such neighborhoods outside the expensive part of Columbus.

Cleveland.com is running 3 different articles on the bikes today, one supporting the track proposal. Not sure where I stand on that in general but I'm against booting an established football program from the park in question. The only urban dirtbike facility I can think of was in the video game GTA Vice City. It was not located in a neighborhood. I would not want to live near one, that much is certain.

If they feel need to do this, they should make the original designers pay for it. The thing is brand new and shouldn't need an overhaul. And per the article, it's currently in search of a new manager too. Maybe wait until there is one and see what they might think?

Wow, that's right by me.

I don't see how our market is uniquely divorced from all the positive changes in urban planning over the last few decades, or from modern car-free lifestyle trends. "The market" nationwide is clamoring for walkable mixed-use neighborhoods. Frankly it's all the rage. People are moving to Portland without even having jobs there, because they're so dead-set on living in that kind of environment. How can we seriously claim there's no demand for it here? The not-especially-marketable nature of this development illustrates the correlation between what "is demanded" in Cleveland and what its absurdly outdated city government chooses to subsidize.

The issue is where, and the city should not be supporting this. At least not the part fronting Superior.

I'm not sure what you mean. Of course it's a choice, how could it not be? But in terms of urban planning this is textbook mid-century urban renewal, which means ridiculously out of date. Higher quality but otherwise similar what happened on the near east side of Detroit a long time ago. They have a big chunk of little cloistered suburban units right next to their skyline. Major streets pass through unnoticed. It didn't make sense then and it makes even less sense now.

Who wants density and retail when we can have gated communities right downtown? And they need two-car garages so you can drive to the big boxes at Steelyard, or Beachwood if you prefer an upscale shopping experience. That's what modern urban living is all about.

Not your classic $1800 location. One might expect the shadow of a windowless warehouse to fill in last, rather than first. I assume these won't have any east-facing windows?