327

You'll get no complaints from me on this. I'm interested to see everyone's take. I personally believe the first-term centrism was a ruse on Kasich's part. Aside from Medicaid, I'm not a fan of anything he's done, and it looks like Medicaid was the centerpiece of the ruse. In particular I'd like to see some national-level fact checking on Jobs Ohio, and all its inherent conflicts of interest.

I think Kasich gets the nomination because he's the crossover candidate Romney was supposed to be. Once he gets a little momentum, he'll get all the backing he needs. The convention in Cleveland is part of this plan. On the downside, his weakness is foreign policy credentials, and I think foreign policy becomes increasingly important as this year plays out. It hurts him in the primaries and it's a huge problem vs Clinton. If he comes out hawkish and says Benghazi a lot he might overcome this, at least in the primary.

We're hardly alone in having snowplow controversies this winter, so I'm hesitant to judge anyone on that alone. But man was it a mess downtown yesterday. Notably worse than Lakewood streets, and Lakewood has been hit hard all month. Unfortunately it happened during the largest convention yet in our new facility, plus HS basketball playoffs, kind of an important weekend to get it right. Downtown is not a very big area for "fleet of plow trucks" purposes. It needs to be plowed for major conventions. That is not optional, and it didn't get done.

I would love to use that rise for an amphitheater. What a view, looking south from there. Can we assume the roof structure is rated for that kind of crowd on top?

That's what I'm getting at. I was referring specifically to their views on government action, which is more germane here, unless we are proposing a rail system funded by charity. Yes, they like deciding where their money goes. The exact same charitable function (e.g. feeding the hungry) becomes abhorrent if government is doing it, or if it primarily benefits people they don't like. So my point is that it's all about the messaging, the packaging of the idea. And I do not suggest waiting around. Yes things will improve as current generations gain power, but as those generations age their views will not remain static. Some will be lost to the other side, which, alas, will not ever just go away. Ultimately converts must be won through some method other than attrition. That requires respect, understanding, empathy, and building bridges. Conversely, it is undermined by "othering" people. Instead try to live in their head, walk in their shoes. How can our point be sold on the basis of their needs and their values? This is not mutually exclusive with appealing to other people who have other values. We live in an age of targeted marketing. Everything we type on the internet, every transaction we record in commerce, is analyzed fifty times over to determine the types of ads we receive. The same methods are used in politics. Know your target and attack where they provide the openings.

I would prefer trees to open grass. Trees reinforce the Forest City theme, they add endless visual variety, they break up winter winds and summer sun. They're almost always a part of any city park on this scale, so their absence here is notable. Big empty voids were a "feature" of the worst 60s-era urban renewal projects. In that sense, Burnham was ahead of his time. But even when large plazas like this are employed in traditional European layouts, as suggested by the architecture, they are rarely if ever just grassy fields. There's usually substantial evidence of landscape design.

Most rail projects are by nature not localized, so state involvement is hard to avoid. To the extent we can, wonderful, but that's very limiting. Obviously a political shift is needed to gain significant traction. That doesn't seem likely in the near future. We are left with the need to convince leaders, and voters, who are ideologically opposed. Those people have ideas they like and language they prefer. They love freedom and commerce and efficiency. They don't favor cities or helping the poor. They really seem to hate traffic jams. Their voter base skews older, wealthier, more rural. Though prone to blind spots and self-serving interpretations, they seem fascinated with history. I think it's possible for rail travel to appeal along all these ideological and demographic lines. Of course, appealing to the younger set is also necessary, but they seem more receptive to begin with. Unfortunately they just aren't big on voting, and that needs to change.

I'd prefer Turner or Johnson or Ronayne over Frank Jackson. I'd prefer Cimperman over anyone else on council, but a broader range of candidates would be nice. I liked how Bill Patmon campaigned at Rapid stations, despite its questionable effectiveness as a tactic. In a city of this size, there ought to be several quality candidates each cycle. Why doesn't that happen?

Sad but true. "Rip it all down" is basically the plan, as explained to me by friends in the public sector. Preservation has its advocates but they are few, and they have no answers to the cost issue. Many structures are so far gone that demo is seen as the only reasonable option. Personally I don't believe it's quite so black and white. Demo is quicker and cheaper, but the question then becomes how much value is assigned to these buildings, their place in history, the manner of living they represent, and the scope of the permanent loss. That value isn't a hard number. You can't call around and get quotes on it like demo vs rehab. It's an arbitrary matter of policy choice. That choice has been made and that value has been set at zero. I met Jeff Johnson at a parade last year, walked right up and thanked him for advocating preservation. He seemed shocked that anyone might agree. My friends on the other side of this issue are not fans of his.

Well yes, but sidewalk visibility is a questionable virtue for a gym. Brings new meaning, and awkwardness, to the term window shopping. Isn't it proper to avert your eyes in a situation like that? And aren't big windows along Main Street supposed to serve the exact opposite function? Words cannot describe how silly this is at a conceptual level. The fact that it was even considered is alarming... and it was approved!

True, but that sounds like wrong layered on top of wrong.

Sadly, it appears so. "But Coyne and Lillian Kuri, another commission member, reiterated that they wished Clayco had incorporated retail - a coffee shop, for example - into the project. The building's Euclid side will house a cafe and a fitness center, but those spaces will be accessible only to residents and their guests." Boo. This is right outside the front doors of the theater district, and they decide to exclude the public. Another prime chunk of Euclid frontage closed off for the duration of a new building's existence. Compares most unfavorably to what U of Akron did at Main and Exchange.

I'm fine with the design and the parking deck. Disappointed about the ground floor, which I understand to be a residents-only gym. Is that still the plan?

On that note, I prefer to take a larger view of this area. Everything along 117th from the Berea Rd rail corridor to the lake is interlinked. We can break it down by Avenue or income or zip code, but it remains interlinked. One might even stretch that to I-90 to encompass the box box stores, because those get a steady flow of pedestrian traffic despite zero effort to accommodate it. That's why I don't believe a grocery is the best use for that Clifton/117th plot, unless it is upscale enough to distinguish itself from Sappell's, which is technically not even a block away. I might instead look to entertainment/dining/nightlife. That's another existing strength for the neighborhood, but arguably one less close to saturation, and more likely to spur interest from other parts of town. I know that wouldn't go over well with the Lake Avenue ranch house crowd, but if it were wholly up to them, we'd probably get more ranch houses there.

That is a huge point-- thank you for making it. Still, I don't think we solve much from that perspective unless redevelopment along the path gets addressed. A couple of minutes and a couple of turns are shaved off the trip, and that's worth something... but the view for newcomers may actually be worse than before, and the stop lights give them plenty of Opportunity to ponder it. In a perfect world, this would have been part of a comprehensive plan to improve East Side logistics, focusing on University Circle. Such a plan would address UC's connectivity on scales ranging from metro to national, as well as its impact (or lack thereof) on immediately adjacent areas. Time after time, our patchwork fiefdom-centric approach eliminates any hope for that kind of planning. The original freeway plan focused on giving UC the best possible connection to 7 billion potential visitors, investors and/or residents. Anything that significant is likely to involve a backyard or two... and I think we as stakeholders need to do a better job of weighing NIMBY interests against the big picture. Cleveland could really use a few more victories for the big picture. As noted earlier, the planning for this project is done. But as the project itself draws closer, I think there's still a lot to be gained from post-game analysis on that planning, because it doesn't seem like anyone is happy with the result.

clvlndr, I would cosign 90% of what you just said, and our areas of disagreement have been off the table for some time. There will be a project it won't be a freeway. It will likely spur some amount of light industry, although the cost-benefit on that remains to be seen. I would submit that CERCLA remains the primary hurdle to redeveloping that area, road or no road. This project seems like a good example of two sides talking past each other. I doubt that anyone honestly believed the original freeway plan would have much direct benefit for the areas it passed through. I believe its purpose was to strengthen UC and, by extension, the region as a whole. It was a mistake to sell it as anything else. But because the needs of the immediate area were so obvious and so significant, tenuous promises were made that this project could somehow accomplish everything at once. There's a strong argument to be made that these neighborhoods deserve targeted development funds before UC deserved a freeway connection. I'm not even sure where I stand on that, nor am I sure that "deserve" is the right way to frame it. But instead of addressing that conflict, we ended up with a costly plan that does little for anyone. While there's value in compromise, there's not so much value as to override all other considerations.

Seriously, dude flaunts that he has nothing on-topic to say, just came here to abuse people... how is that OK? Hi Strap. What I meant was that we already have surface streets connecting 490's current terminus to UC. The fact that they're not ideally direct does not merit such an expensive solution. Having 490 end at UC might be a worthy goal, worthy enough to support this project in that form. But since we aren't getting that it seems wasteful. Better to spend the money on transit improvements or neighborhood development, rather than on a hybrid project that serves neither purpose in any meaningful way.

Well, that didn't take long. Have fun barfing at people. Don't get up, I'll show myself out.

... and this video provides a graphic reminder why (for $330+M) it's being built-- to serve West Side/suburbanites commuting to the JJC, CC and UH. Talk of neighborhood development was a ruse to get neighborhood pols to buy in. They would have been better served with 60 more blocks of 490 with an exit at 105. It probably would have been cheaper too. This is a compromise. In any case, ODOT won't do the actual developments so they can't really predict what they will look like. That would have made sense. I supported this when the plan was to extend 490 to an actual destination. Now it's been muddled to a point that it can't properly serve any purpose. Now it's just a big price tag for diddly squat.

Depends a lot on where you live and work. I have a crosstown commute that isn't practical via transit, but I live in a dense area so my evenings and weekends are largely car free. That's the best many of us can do. Having groceries within walking distance is a big boost.

True, as it is for most port cities, but our infrastructure developed with that particular concentration in mind. Downtown is the hub of the transit system and the highway system, maximizing its utility as an economic center. Beachwood is under-served in both regards, not only making it less accessible to the workforce, but also clogging up the interstates in that area and impairing the bypass function for which they were designed.

I'm in the same boat, hating my daily commute from Lakewood to Beachwood, as well as my car payment. Cleveland's job sprawl is especially challenging because so much of it is concentrated at one far end of the metro, with poor accessibility from the urban core via highway or transit.

I'm in this neighborhood too. I'd love for the church to be preserved as is, because however much it would cost to repair the structure, the cost of replacing it with another landmark of similar quality is prohibitive. And while historical preservation won't provide much ROI on an individual project basis, the aggregated cost of neglecting it is beyond measure. The boom period that produced these structures was unique. We now live in an age that produces ranches, plazas, parking lots. Every tear-down is a substantial and permanent loss. There was a time when Playhouse Square supposedly couldn't be salvaged. Demo was imminent. But because a few people spoke up, that sad inevitable reality was replaced with a better and more hopeful reality. The neighborhoods surrounding W117th offer something for everyone, with incredible diversity and minimal blight. It's worth the investment. If the right re-use can be found (I think we can do better than rock climbing), that church building could be the same kind of anchor/catalyst as the Capitol Theater or the West Side Market. We're lucky it's there, and I hope it's still there 100 years from now.

Policy discussions aren't allowed in project threads. Why are you so intent on shutting this thread down? You've brought it up numerous times on the first page. At this point you're just trolling. By that I mean you don't like the topic we're trying to discuss here, you so attempt to disrupt, provoke and belittle. You obviously have a divergent view of what can and should be done in the city, but that does not place you in a position to imply that everyone who disagrees doesn't understand the basis of what we're discussing. I've said it before and I'll say it again-- Hts121, please stop attacking other forumers. Your statements that we "never consider" this or that enough to see it your way are absolutely false and insulting. All we're doing is taking a different position than yours with regard the thread topic.

Noise travels. People living in the St. Hyacinth neighborhood have lodged noise complaints against nearby industries, and that's just what comes out of one plant, as I understand it. There is already a large distribution center conglomoration just north of 490, south of Woodland, west of 55th. Nobody wants to live anywhere near that, as development levels in the surrounding area can attest. If there are any plans on the table for creating desirable residential along this stretch, new road or no road, I would love to hear them. I'm intimately familiar with this part of the city through my work, and IMO it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. For everyone's sake, but in particular for its remaining residents.