327

Maybe the hardship is that Shaker and/or the developer might have to talk to more than one grocer? Because I know this "line in the sand" is not an industry standard. There's a grocer that is building right up to the street on Clifton Blvd, with parking in back. Obviously it can be done. I understand that this is a key tenant but they should not be able to dictate city planning policy, when so much public money is being spent to redesign this area of town.

And there we have one big reason this project is meh. Better than what it's replacing, but fundamentally flawed. Not all variances should be granted.

This looks a lot more like a suburban office campus than Crocker Park does. If there really is surface parking along Warrensville... well, there shouldn't be. That belongs in the middle of the block! These structures aren't nearly big enough to need a road on both sides.

One might think so. But it seems like Pettine would rather embarrass him than play him. I'm not a Johnny fan, I just see no value in publicly sticking it to him. Too much spillover damage for the team.

I would surmise that largely because of Cleveland has done little to rekindle commerce in its blighted areas, it has allowed countless mixed-use structures to be replaced with single-use, and it has added acres and acres of new development that is residential-only. The policies behind these trends need to change, and Pittsburgh may be a good model to consider when revising them. Neighborhood retail is not optional and it never has been. Cleveland should stop at nothing to bring pedestrian-friendly business back to its neighborhoods.

Absolutely. But it's nice to see the City of Cleveland make overtures toward potential new residents. Not too long ago, a different tune was sung.

Might be a pointless pursuit anyway. The article was discussing millennials moving back into inner cities, which doesn't require a sharp definition of what constitutes a downtown. Millennials are moving into a variety of inner city neighborhoods. I often find focusing on "downtown-only" population or growth to be counterproductive, as a CBD can never exist or function in isolation.

It needs to be consistent or its a worthless metric. Detroit and Cincinnati both have a lot of density near downtown, whereas in Cleveland it's a pretty bright line between skyscrapers and where everything is 1-2 stories.

Only that it will never happen absent significant new funding from local or state sources. It will be able eligible for federal New Start funding, but only if a 50% nonfederal match can be found. It would be a huge asset for reducing University Circle traffic and for getting inner city residents to suburban jobs, including via Laketran and RTA bus connections much more quickly, addressing many of the jobs-access concerns raised by the Cleveland Federal Reserve, Fund For Our Economic Future, and Brookings that are holding back our region's economy. What actions is RTA taking to seek funds for this project? Has the Kasich administration been given an opportunity to turn down an extension of the Red Line? Has any county levy been proposed for it? RTA is uniquely responsible for making those efforts. No point in blaming others if the Red Line's own parent organization refuses to submit any proposal or request. It's possible that actual movement toward a meaningful extension of an already-popular rail service might garner some public support.

Or are they fleeing "creeping density"? They might tell you they dislike density and are fleeing density, but ask them why they dislike density. They'll tell you it's because of noise, traffic, and maybe access to nature. They dislike density they're so used to density being done so poorly. To me sprawl does not necessarily mean low density. There are lots of highly dense sprawled out places. See Polaris in Columbus for the most extreme example but I think many suburbs all over Ohio would qualify. There are tons of apartments and newer houses around the mall. High density but you need a car to go anywhere. Horrible traffic. If you gave people a complete urban area where their own two feet can get them to parks, groceries, and other necessities, they might not hate density so much. Not everybody wants to be on top of each other like they're in Manhattan. But if you had a well designed city with good transit and the level of density of say, Collinwood or Glenville (as originally designed), you could get a nice sized yard and a nice sized house and still be able to walk places. To a point that's true. Look at Lakewood and University Heights, significantly denser than Cleveland but losing population at a much lower rate. Still, I think you're leaving out a couple important considerations: privacy, and elbow room. Americans seem to value those things more than others, many cultural indicators suggest that. With the density of central Paris you could put nine million people a 20 minute walk from the beach, but could you get that many Americans to want to live that way? To some degree people equate density with crowding, and many don't wish to live that way. Work, shop, eat, maybe....but not necessarily live. That is a very good description of the ideals which led to sprawl, ideals which are now fading from American life as abruptly as they appeared.

Even if you meticulously plan your life to minimize driving, and you have the ideal worksite plus the resources to live wherever you want, you will still need to drive sometimes. Many people don't have the luxury of even trying to drive less. We can't change that by closing roads or banning parking, but we eventually can change it with projects like this one. We could reach the goal of car-free living even quicker if more developments in the city focused on walkability and mixed-use. We're getting there!

I don't care what Manziel or Josh Gordon do in their off time. If they have problems, they should seek help. But if they're the best player at their position, they should play.

If developments shouldn't include parking for economic reasons, maybe the city could build its own decks instead. That approach is not unprecedented. Ultimately the parking will get paid for, through user fees combined with rents or with taxes. It seems like the issue here isn't just one of cost, but perhaps also a desire to cause a parking shortage for its own sake. And while I think I understand the motivation behind that, I don't believe it's a good idea at this stage.

See: Same issue just on a spectrum. Still assumes there are no alternative zoning codes that might be beneficial rather than harmful. You mention several problems caused by bad zoning, but you also mention several desirable ends that reformed zoning might encourage. I just don't see elimination, or partial elimination, as the only choices here.

Major urban developments like this are not just for residents, they're for everyone. The same goes for downtown (and uptown) on the whole. I want as many people as possible to visit downtown, shop there, gamble, people watch, whatever. I want those people to feel welcome and feel included. And if they need to get there by car, I'm not going to hold it against them. We might squabble if they insist on surface parking but that's about it.

The issue is what kind of zoning should apply where, rather than "this one specific policy vs. no policy at all." That's a false choice. Regardless of how it's framed, this article is pretty specific in arguing against the use of zoning laws to prevent urban density. Most modern zoning laws are set up that way because anti-density has been the development paradigm for decades now. There are myriad possibilities for reform other than eliminating zoning altogether.

Live and let live-- no amount of available parking prevents anyone from residing there, walking there, or using transit. What's important is we finally have a "there" to talk about. As projects like this make city life more viable, we'll see more people choosing city life over other options.

It can be both things and more. Sometimes you need to get in and get out, nothing wrong with that. But there will still be a ton of parking after all this is built. Everybody wins!

Study says locally produced ethane will spur growth in plastics. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/11/utica_shale_boom_moving_closer.html#incart_river_home

I just heard him speak last night and there were hints of some big apartment project... didn't realize that meant an announcement today! This is awesome.

Direct-to-Europe container shipping continues to grow, as in 400% year over year. Interesting that some of this new business was being lost simply because we weren't offering it. http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/port_of_cleveland_is_proving_i.html#incart_river_home

I'm sad to lose these buildings, too. But I don't think 4 buildings scattered over dozens of square miles equals "mass" teardowns. It's piecemeal. And who do you expect to "replace" these buildings? Those 4 buildings are listed on a single meeting's agenda. The cumulative effect of that pace can be seen on any major street in the city. Your question about future plans is a good one, and I'm hoping the city asks similar questions before approving demo. Agreed, and we need to start worrying about the effect of these dead arteries on the city's ability to draw and retain population. Step One to saving neighborhoods is to quit actively destroying them.

If we're going to continue allowing the mass teardown of our pedestrian- and transit- oriented built environment, we need to make sure it is replaced with similarly focused designs. The residents in these neighborhoods deserve that, as do all of us who have a stake in this city's long term viability. We cannot abide losing any more 2-3 story urban structures and getting a CVS in their place.

I'm glad Sagamore is keeping the psych hospital. And while I'm also glad Cleveland is keeping these Dealer Tire jobs, I hope that the Victory building can remain mixed-use, as opposed to putting offices on the first floor.

Same here, tried to come but too much work today. Have fun! Kafeteria rocks.