327

The problem lies in assigning genders to personality traits.

Does the ad actually say "toxic masculinity?" The problem with that term is the generalization, the stereotyping. It's like trying to stop racism by calling it "toxic whiteness."

Maybe this explains all those Steelers jerseys we see around here. We're absorbing Pittsburgh's huddled masses yearning to be free.

10 years past your prime, nobody takes you seriously anymore. 20 years past, you come back around as nostalgia. Smashmouth is way past the first milestone and is creeping up on the second, which means your Chicago friend is behind the times.

I had always wondered what made Corlett distinct, and now it is no more.

Donors wanted Superior closed off and they're still trying to prove it's a public menace.

It's like they're zoning for ugly. Makes me appreciate local styles more. Ours are almost the same but without that one extra mistake.

At least they're talking about it. "Collier said the city is also exploring how a pedestrian bridge could be linked to a new multi-modal transportation facility in the area, where a small, outmoded Amtrak station now stands."

I've lived in a couple of county seats half that size and didn't find this to be true. Republicans might win such areas 60/40 but not 90/10. I think it would be a big mistake to write them off any more than we already have-- it makes gerrymandering super duper easy. "Urban liberal values" makes it sound like we only care about 2 or 3 counties per state. That's a bad recipe for mass appeal.

I mostly agree, but maybe those towns used to help mitigate some of the rural politics. Politics was less polarized when urbanity was more dispersed.

We all know Giant Eagle would prefer to serve the entire metro thru one massive store with parking for 5000. And two cashiers.

There needs to be a happy medium, otherwise urbanism becomes difficult to pull off. I'd be happier about this whole situation if the plan for Midtown had tried to put more people in walking distance. Instead we've got a bunch of offices with excellent grocery access, and a bunch of parking with excellent transit access. None of that makes sense.

I think this may apply only to a certain subset of wealthy coastal millennials. Plenty of people the same age as her know all about can openers.

I'm confused about how these long-term tenants managed to sneak up on everybody.

From the articles, it sounds like judges were holding out for control over the location of any new building. But there's no indication of what locations they're for or against.

Can't accuse Crains of promoting the place... that description is technically true but what a way to set the stage.

Previous posts have suggested that the mid-rise is a lot more likely, in part because there's opposition to a high-rise. I'm curious what the opposition is based on. What are your thoughts?

CCF was under contract to manage a facility it didn't own for the benefit of the community. This is called a fiduciary duty because there's a conflict of interest involved-- of course CCF wants to max out profits, but it agreed for a price to put that interest behind Lakewood's. CCF violated its fiduciary duty by intentionally steering profitable work to Fairview and other CCF facilities, essentially running Lakewood Hospital into the ground on purpose. This is not an isolated problem; many rural and inner-city facilities are disappearing in similar fashion nationwide. Large hospital systems are better off operating as few facilities as possible, ideally newer facilities in more profitable neighborhoods.

If the greenway depends on core urban areas remaining undeveloped forever, it might not be a good fit.

Interesting. I'm supportive of the greenway idea, but not to the extent that it blocks actual urban development.

I'm fully on board with this, but that RTA press release is a little confusing. Are they referring to some kind of structure they're going to build near the greenway, or is the article about the greenway itself? Presumably the former but the article doesn't quite make that leap.

There isn't much getting built anywhere without some kind of subsidy. We just need to make sure we're getting what we pay for when we give them out. No more of this "the market says you get garbage urban design." When the market has been modified by a gift from the people, the people have a say in what gets built. Developers shouldn't get to make every decision based on maximizing profits, not at the expense of the community who made their profits possible.

There are dollar stores in Lakewood and Ohio City which don't seem to be hurting anyone. I can understand not wanting certain uses in certain areas, but this is retail on a retail street.

We could sell US-built small cars in China, where small cars are popular, except that the Chinese inexplicably believe tariffs work.

I was agreeing with you. Whenever anyone points out Pittsburgh has a better way of doing things, the response is always that their topography is more favorable. Or less favorable, somehow leading to better results. Either way, adopting their policies is out of the question because they have hills and we don't. I think that's bunk. They manage their square, including programming and security, better than we do. And we should be looking to adopt those policies.