327

It should not be. This is awful zoning.

I agree that the original rendering was better, and that we shouldn't accept bad designs, but I don't think this new rendering all that bad. It suffers (a lot) when compared to the earlier design, but it's a step above most of the recent CSU stuff, half of which doesn't even belong in an urban environment. The most troubling aspect, to me, is all the tacked-on sheet material and what appears to be faux corrugated aluminum. I just cannot understand how that became Cleveland's go-to exterior style.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/el-paso-urban-walkable-americans/431661/ Apparently, El Paso made some headway in urbanization but is now reversing course a bit. Sprawl strikes back!

I don't have a picture handy, but do we remember what the BP building was supposed to look like, before they were asked to taper the top? I for one am very glad the design was changed.

Love that arcade, and the idea behind it. I meant something bigger though, on the scale of "let's build a brand new showpiece in the middle of downtown" but have it be something the majority of the population might have reason to visit. For example, what if instead we'd built something like University Square on this site, featuring a Target and a Macy's.

http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2016/01/heres_whats_really_going_on_at.html#3 Interesting piece in the PD about how the "Medical Mart" business plan hasn't thus far worked out. More interesting to me is how so much of the space is being subsidized or simply given away so that it doesn't sit empty. My thought is, why can't we do that for general retail?

Best thing the state could do for East Cleveland is facilitate a merger.

That's a really complex discussion, and I don't see how we could keep it zoning-flavored.

I try my best not to be pushy, but it's really important to me that people understand the basic laws governing what we talk about here. And now, thanks to your research, we have specific info about the process in Cleveland.

There is no question, at all, that purely aesthetic review is permitted. It simply is. The law review article you posted is very clear about this, on page 2: "In recent years public officials have enacted and courts generally have upheld a variety of forms of aesthetic regulation... At the federal level, the Supreme Court has expressly ruled that aesthetic values constitute a legitimate public purpose for police power regulation. Similarly, Ohio and other state courts have ruled that purely aesthetic values may be furthered in regulation of land use and development."

This has worked very well throughout history. We all disagree with the government about something, maybe several things. I still prefer not to live in an anarchy. Your mileage may vary.

Having dealt with this professionally, from coast to coast, I can tell you design review is very common and very legal. On solely aesthetic grounds. It is the norm in metropolitan areas great and small. You don't usually encounter design review in backwoods Missouri type places, but then again sometimes you do. And your only choice is to comply. edited to add: Also, the first amendment has nothing to do with aesthetics. It only covers political discourse and even then its protections are limited. I encounter a lot of "government can't do that" positions on this forum, and for the most part, these positions are categorically incorrect. Yes government can. There is very little the feds are barred from doing, and there is even less that state and local governments are barred from doing.

I'm pretty sure it would. This is an everyday practice in most US communities. Regulations are broadly legal unless they violate civil rights. And cities aren't prone to holding regular open meetings of illegal commissions. Edited to add: For what it's worth, here's a link to diagrams of planned or existing tall buildings where a rectangle doesn't appear till page 2. While straight-up boxes do still get built, they're a lot less common than they used to be, and I don't believe they represent the future. http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=207

Globally there aren't a lot of flat topped skyscrapers going up these days. Just one recent example, the Great American tower in Cincinnati. Pretty heavy on the ornamentation up top. I like the current Nucleus design well enough, the irregular windows are cool, but the overall rectangular shape creates a very 60s-70s feel. I don't think our skyline needs any more of that.

I'm just glad this is happening after First Merit went to such lengths to renovate its (now former) HQ, Akron's tallest building. Don't get me wrong, I'm not remotely glad this is happening. First Merit has been a good corporate citizen for NEO.

There shouldn't be "big war chests" involved, especially with the wards here being so numerous and small. You can personally meet every likely voter. You're not flying around and buying TV ads.

That does not call for ripping down the city and replacing it with segregated suburbs. No one's problems are solved that way and new problems are created.

She's not wrong, pointy looks better than flat and the theme is worth continuing. Aside from that I like the design we've seen so far.

First I've heard of that. Did the commission make any suggestions of its own?

Oddly located, as nothing around it is all that dense. Seems designed for walkup and transit-oriented use but few in its market have those options. Locate this thing downtown, or hook a rail line to it, or surround it with high rises, and I bet it's wildly successful.

In trying to work out what a more regional approach looks like, we need to remember that cities like Lakewood have historically fiercely fought becoming a part of Cleveland, which is fine, and they have every right to do so. But it seems to me that this is the schism we need to get past. If we did take a more regional mindset and non-Cleveland residents had more of a say in Cleveland matters, then should the same be true vice versa? Should Cleveland residents have a say in Lakewood decisions, Mayfield Heights decisions, or any other Northeast Ohio City? Yes. County merger would give all residents an equal say in the whole shebang. It would also simplify income taxes and eliminate poaching. The collar counties would still be separate, but at least we'd be more on par with newer metros.

Agreed about the real solution. Suburban agenda can mean many things though, and most of what I see as a suburban agenda has come from Cleveland's own leadership. I'm tired of seeing "your tax dollars at work" on signs announcing new plazas and tract housing. The city has been on a bad planning path for too long and there's been no accountability. There are other issues, like immigration, the music tax, and open container districts, where Cleveland's leadership displays a conservative cul-de-sac attitude that's absolutely mind boggling. On another level, the city vs suburbs schism is something we just have to get past. That's what regionalism means. Consider also that lot of local urbanists live in areas that are technically suburbs but offer better urban living experiences than Cleveland does. Sure, I could move from Lakewood to Ohio City, as long as I'm willing to get a third job, trade my apartment for a single family house and drive more often.

Taxation without representation is flawed on many levels. I have no say in whether Frank Jackson stays or goes, and yet I have to fund all his policy choices. I don't mind the funding part. I can't stand the no input part.

I hope so too. It isn't that hard to discern what separates the greener areas from the less green ones. To varying degrees, the deep green areas feature transit access, abundant apartment stock and walkable storefront districts. Conversely, the areas most lacking in these features are the ones being shunned by educated millenials. Note that this shunning includes large areas of the city which have been torn down and rebuilt in a suburban format, recently and at great cost. Nobody who has choices is choosing that, it isn't marketable, so we need to quit wasting land and resources on it.

I like it, if true. Was this not essentially the plan when they were both hired? The team has been underperforming and Blatt's authority was gone. Some sort of midseason reboot was necessary this year, just like last year.