327

Detroit worse off by an order of magnitude. Outside of the immediate downtown and midtown areas, everything is a mess there. Parts of Cleveland are a mess too, but other parts are quite nice. As to downtown, we had one empty skyscraper but it's taken care of. They still have several, don't they? It's a bigger city with a bigger downtown, which is great, but our downtown is in much better condition. It's almost fully restored! I'm not denying that Cleveland has had some missteps and missed opportunities, and I agree about getting our act together-- but I think we are safely outside of Detroit's buttkicking range.

I generally agree. My solution is not to eliminate zoning codes but to modernize them. Discussion upthread suggests that is already starting to happen. Once we have a code that encourages density and walkability, we won't have to rely on benevolent discretion. And the NIMBYs will find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

They screwed the boardwalk by not having anything front it directly. It's cut off from the action by fences and hedges. A controlled-access boardwalk, if you will. No surprise... that's exactly what the plans promised. Still not too late to fix it though.

More evidence of anti-train bias? Was rail seriously considered for this route at the local level? Did the feds turn down a request for rail funding here, or did we not put the plan on the table?

We all can agree that lack of state and federal funding is a problem for RTA, but I would rate anti-rail local leadership as a bigger one. RTA will not ever obtain federal rail funding that it chooses not to apply for. We have no business crying poor at a time when passenger rail is getting built in Detroit. That city is bankrupt and hollowed out, yet somehow they're getting a brand new rail line right up Woodward. We can't keep letting RTA leadership pass the buck on its own bad decisions. The possibility of southbound rail for Cleveland was willfully cast aside. Someone should be held accountable for that.

You're right about that. It would be served by rail if there was LRT of some sort down W. 25 into Parma... oh right, the Calabrese crew scuttled that idea in favor of more BRT studies. Your constant digs about the RTA are getting really old. I think he makes a valid point, and RTA's anti-rail policies are what's getting old. If everyone stopped talking about it, it would still be a problem, but we'd be even further away from a solution. This is a growth corridor and it's within Cuyahoga County. RTA should at least be looking at extending rail service there. I realize we have more pressing priorities for rail expansion, but at some point we do need southbound rail service. How can we expect this area of the metro to develop in a transit oriented way if transit is barely offered there?

We're talking about a 3-seat trip, possibly 4 if the the initial bus stop isn't walkable. Couldn't we just say Broadview Heights isn't currently served by the rail system, but it should be?

Which firm?

Thanks to everyone for clarifying. In most cases here, I'm not criticizing the developers so much as the local policies which tie the developers' hands.

The layout of places like Avon and Kirtland results in a much higher cost of living, regardless of housing subsidies. Anyone who qualifies for subsidized housing is going to have difficulty functioning in those areas due to the transportation costs. The more affluent the area, the less likely it will even have sidewalks, let alone bus stops. And there's rarely any intra-suburb bus service at all. Sprawl does not serve everyone equally, which I daresay is the point of it.

Yes. And I wouldn't be surprised if our "concerned citizen" friends from a few pages back have created an environment so hostile to urbanism that developers saw no point in proposing anything more significant than this. Imagine the long term effects if locals were to vocally advocate in favor of density...

As for why housing advocates are still pushing the burbs, that may just be ideological inertia. They've been fighting that battle since long before urbanist thinking took hold, and any change in course will likely be measured in decades. I think it's the same reason we see inner city politicians pushing for suburban development near downtown... the burbs have been seen as an unfairly withheld prize for so long that the desire to "win this fight" trumps any deeper analysis. Be careful what you wish for indeed.

That ramp is one lane right now, with a lot of work currently underway on it. That work will end, presumably in less than 10 years, at which point 90's capacity will be doubled from what it is at this moment. A little bit of coordination would go a long way toward defusing complaints that people have raised about the shoreway project. It's one thing to point out that commuter concerns can't always win, but it's another to screw commuters unnecessarily. Starting this now without regard to I-90's status smacks of the latter. And ultimately, screwing downtown commuters also screws downtown, in its competition with other office markets. Regardless of overall intent, we're talking about an avoidable increase in the number of people who get upset about going downtown. All I'm saying is that the timing should have been planned out better, for everyone's sake.

I refer specifically the constriction at the Tremont curve, which is being widened to two lanes right now. That aspect won't take 10 years. Seems quite sensible to get that second lane open on 90 prior to constricting the shoreway.

Hopefully the police are as aware as everyone else that I-90 is still down to one lane inbound with the construction there. This shoulda coulda waited until after the I-90 work was complete.

Indeed. A recent article about the old Huntington building noted that there's a blimp dock on the roof, but downtown Cleveland is so windy that it could never be used. Outside the dead of winter, I like that windiness. It adds to the sense of place. But in January, north of all the big buildings? Yikes.

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17587.0.html Ohio City refers to a large and diverse area, easily big enough for sub-neighborhoods with Market Square serving as the overall core. Commercial areas work better as centers than dividers... otherwise your neighborhoods have indistinct and/or overlapping foci. So for me, Hingetown passes muster while SOLO doesn't. It's not like anything along Lorain Ave only serves areas to the south.

Whether or not they understand it, they sure seem to hate it. Just east of Playhouse Square we have an institution determined to make a big chunk of downtown as look suburban as possible. Did they have to run this past anyone first, what appears to be a large-scale redevelopment plan? Do they feel this is what everyone wants? Do they care?

Agreed. On further review, these have some other nice colonial-style elements in addition to the brick. And they have some size to them. All things considered, not too shabby.

Likewise, I'm happy for anything (that isn't Applebees) on these vacant lots, although the design is notably low-end. Architecturally it looks like the setting from season 1 of The Wire. Not good. That McKinley development looks great though. It's like a tale of two cities, albeit within one suburb of one city.

"Forest City" at least has the history behind it, plus it's fashionably green. It's also notable that as you come in from the west on the turnpike, there are barely any trees for hours until you enter this metro. We should be working that.

Absolutely. If it were a level playing field, I'd say Uber deserves to clean up because their app is such a welcome advance. But there's more to it, people also love the price difference and most don't seem to realize the degree of tradeoff. Anyone who doesn't care about the business model (and what it means) has no one to blame but themselves if they get burnt.

It's not magic. It's just that Uber's established competition is required to maintain commercial licensure and insurance, while the company takes responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Those added costs protect the consumer as well as the worker. But in this brave new world of ours: Step 1) Screw them Step 2) Profit So no, definitely not magic.

Taste being taste, suit yourself... but I just can't see people paying homage to the CSU campus 1000 years from now. And that's even assuming people between now and then develop an appreciation for the russet tones of rebar bleeding through.

Uber will get drivers as long as people are desperate for cash, i.e. forever. If there was some sort of "market competition" for the labor, why would we be having this independent contractor discussion? There would be a bidding war between the services, driving up wages and benefits. That ain't happening. At all. Instead, they're wiping out competition from professional cabbies using Wal-Mart's playbook. It's a rocketship to the bottom. On the flipside, Uber is worth a ton of money. Just like Wal-Mart.