327

Correct me if I'm wrong Strap, but it sounds like you're suggesting that Downtown and Uptown be viewed as bedroom communities for Midtown. I think that approach ignores the essential nature of each piece and how they fit together. And University Circle has a very finite capacity for adding anything, particularly with the height restrictions that always seem to emerge there. The other hot neighborhoods you mention aren't exactly brimming with open land. They're popular because they're relatively intact so a bit of rehab was all they needed. Those neighborhoods will continue to gentrify, but that may reduce their overall populations. It will certainly moderate any gains from infill. The recent census indicates that this pattern isn't conducive to growth. Lots of housing units were added in the past decade, yet the city's population not only shrank but got older. At some point we have to shift into the next gear. I've always found your tag quote about the grapes to be intriguing and perceptive, and I think it points out Cleveland's fundamental problem. Since 1932 many of the grapes have shriveled, and those remaining are scattered throughout far too much vine. We can't be grapes anymore. Frankly that never worked... it set the table for the collapse of the 60s. My grape, your grape, red grape, green grape. The ties that bind stopped binding and everything fell apart. Instead, we need to view the city as an integrated whole. Each part is significant not only unto itself but in relation to those around it, in relation to the core, and in relation to the entirety. That means downtown needs to be downtown, to serve all the purposes that a downtown is meant to serve and has always served in functional cities. It can't just be a neighborhood. Similarly, Main Street has to be Main Street, including everything denoted by that concept. It can't just be a workplace, even if it's THE workplace. It needs to form a living connective tissue between downtown and uptown. To accomplish that, it needs to be welcoming and inviting. It can't be cold, impersonal, institutional. It can't be lined with places that obviously require an ID card to get in. It can't just be for those who happen to have jobs there. It has to be for everyone. Without a functional downtown and a functional main street, there's a low ceiling on what we can accomplish by focusing on individual nuggets here and there. Something has to tie them together into one great city. That's what downtowns and main streets are for.

Per the official CDC plan, additional structures like the Tech Park are desired. It's not functionally a warehouse but it looks like a modern one and its effect on the street is similar to one. I'm not sure worker density means a whole lot. If it did, the Clinic's surroundings would look much different. Same goes for Third Federal. These examples demonstrate that workers do not equate to feet on the street or money spent nearby. Workers don't even equate to nearby residential demand, although it doesn't hurt. I think inlovewithCLE makes a great point about the city competing with its suburbs for jobs, and it needs whatever modern buildings are necessary to that end. But needing them in general doesn't mean we need them on Euclid Avenue. When it comes to new residents, Cleveland isn't really competing with Beachwood so much as it's competing with Milwaukee and Boston and so forth. Cleveland cannot offer a competitive suburban living experience. Ever. Its only hope is to compete as a major city, with other major cities, for residents who desire to live in such an environment. Having jobs for them is a big help, sure. But is it necessary to put those jobs right on Main Street, when our competitors are able to offer similar workplaces AND a Main Street people might want to visit? Can we afford to have a pedestrian dead-zone of this length right through the middle of town?

All I can say is that vibrant mixed use communities don't tend to sprout within suburban industrial parks either. It's easier to build neighborhoods on vacant lots than it is to build them on top of brand new warehouses. The state of Midtown when the corridor started is that planning along the corridor was largely already complete, and I think that was a mistake. One would think that the healthline project might have opened possibilities that weren't available in the 90s. But the expedient planning of this industrial park didn't leave much opening for any of them. If there was a time for patience, maybe that was during the planning phase. And yes, there is certianly a glass half full aspect to the Agora transfer. But it also gives us a chance to (re)consider what might be done in that vicinity. I think that's a conversation the community needs to have.

Hts121, I understand your point... but if the city, through a CDC, put all its weight behind plans to build a suburban industrial park in the WHD, how many Stark-type proposals do you think we'd see? Midtown planning hasn't been an open issue for almost 10 years. It isnt surprising to me that the amount of support this all-biotech plan has gotten would dissuade competing proposals to the extent that none would see the light of day. Substantial headwinds are in place, not at the market or demand level, but at the government level. This was all a done deal before the transit project even broke ground. Not similar in that sense to WHD.

Not if the CDC surrounds it with suburban warehouses as fast as they can. This shouldn't be about immediate cash availability, it should be about what's best for the future of the city. The public spent a fortune on that transit line... immediate profits for suburban warehouse builders should not be the end-all be-all concern here. But it appears that suburban warehouse builders are essentially in charge of planning out Cleveland's main street. That's not ideal. Public-private partnerships should be partnerships, with the public's interests considered and protected. The public's interests are usually more long-term than those of construction companies.

Not talking about the complex... talking about the area around it, which the article referenced. Planners/developers aren't sure what to do with it. I'm suggesting that plenty of examples already exist. This wouldn't be the first time redevelopment took place around a large historic performance venue. But it may be the first time that using it to anchor an entertainment district was seemingly off the table. Of course the offices need to be filled with officey stuff, inlcuding biotech. But that shouldn't be the overarching theme for redeveloping this area. It's physically closer to a college and another theater than it is to any hospital. Using the Agora's stage for "tech events" should be way, way, way down the list of priorities. I'm glad you like the idea. I personally think it's psycho for a CDC to become so wedded to one concept that they squander every non-conforming asset they're handed. Hard to believe there's a lack of demand for entertainment districts near universities. This seems more like bad planning, plain and simple. One word answer for everything-- BIOTECH! No nuance, no critical thinking, no sense of context. I think LoConti's heart is and has always been in the right place, I just wish he had donated the property to someone with clearer vision. That, or I wish Midtown Inc had clearer vision.

Change the zoning overlay in that area and advance plans that have more to do with the theater than with the clinic. Model it after other urban areas that feature large historic performance venues. This would almost certainly entail a greater focus on residential and retail than the rest of the corridor has gotten. The east end of the corridor features hospitals, while this end features theaters (Masonic too). Work with what's there. Drop the biotech focus west of 55th, go for an entertainment-themed neighborhood instead. Market it to CSU students, YP's, and hipsters.

Developers pulling their hair out trying to decide what to do with an intersection that includes a large performance venue... it's like no such opportunity has ever occurred in this city or any other. Oh well, forget logic... let's focus on how we can ram a biotech theme into a historic rock venue located in a gritty area of the world capitol of rock music.

Some of the comments make decent points, like $100k is a lot for this one light pole, and it doesn't compare favorably with public art elsewhere. Like that old fake Volvo commercial... "CSU, boxy but good."

Brief article pointing out that anti-urban zoning near transit stops often prevents the density that's necessary to really make TOD work. His example is DC, where TOD housing comes at a huge premium because the demand is strong but the supply is artificially restricted. That isn't so much a problem in Cleveland, where we're more concerned with generating street life than affordable housing, but the principle remains. Anti-urban planning and zoning can reduce the returns on our investments. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/05/the_metro_premium.html "But to maximize the value you get for your expense, you really need to unlock the potential for densty created by the high demand for these locations. If you build the lines but don't allow the density, you've really just created a private benefit for people who happen to live near the stations."

The seismic issues have shown up in Oklahoma and England too. There does seem to be a connection. As for the water, at least in the Youngstown area, it's been shitty forever. A softener will take the orange out, and the sulfur smell, but it still feels greasy. I know many disagree, but to me the water concern is more remote. I favor strong regulations to prevent a situation like the one in Wyoming, but I don't think it's reason enough to shut the whole thing down.

That area of Lorain isn't so bad, architecturally. Heading east from 117th you go down the hill into Lorain Station, which is a cool little stretch. I think this part of town has loads of potential, because the housing and commercial strip are all pretty much intact (things get more sparse to the west of the Variety, until you reach Kamm's). It's also one of the most diverse areas of the city. Unfortunately the crime stats are not on a positive trajectory.

I really hope Blackmon is there at 4.

There's a substantial amount of trickle-down money involved in this too. Most eastern Ohio landowners aren't in the 1%, plus there's all the blue-collar spinoff work. I do, however, draw the line at earthquakes. Luckily our state government does too. I hope there's a way to prevent that aspect going forward, because I would hate to see so much economic potential fizzle. Anybody seen the movie Nothing But Trouble, the one about Valkanvania?

What's the point of making the area liveable when development there is overwhelmingly non-residential? Besides, Cleveland doesn't need any more meadows. It really doesn't. Unfortunately for the Dunham Tavern, it's become a raisin in the mayonnaise. It represents a long lost past for Euclid Avenue that our current leaders chose not to move forward with.

That argument isn't as strong as you're making it out to be. Clifton is fronted by residential, while the shoreway portion is fronted by parks and heavy industry. They aren't fungible. Also, it's rational for commuter roads to be wider and faster near downtown, because traffic increases as you approach there and decreases as you get further out. This phenomenon is observable and predictable. Not just here but everywhere. The current arrangement makes logical sense, which is why it's there in the first place. This brings us to the other problem. A new freeway along Clifton isn't needed, it's desired by no one and would rightly be seen as a waste of money. Lots of expense for minimal gain... which mirrors the concerns that many have about the boulevard conversion project. Independent of the traffic issue is a less than favorable cost-benefit equation, during a period of relative scarcity. Why couldn't we have sent buses of protestors to Cbus to ask for better mass transit funding instead? Surely that irony is apparent.

In the case of Cleveland, many of the truly historic structures were lost years ago. Much of what they're talking about razing now is cheap woodframes in an unmarketable duplex format. By all means there should be a moratorium on tearing down brick apartments and mixed use buildings. But losing all those duplexes gives us a chance to rebuild with more brick apartments and mixed use buildings. While we fight for preservation, as well we should, we also need to help guide our cities toward a denser future.

That building in particular really should be apartments and retail. The change of plans is kind of a shame, and I wish those tax credits were predicated on keeping the original residential plan in place.

I'm committed to Ohio because my roots here are very deep. I love having a homeland that I feel so connected with.

Yeah, that's largely what the DCA Ambassadors are for. It might help if there were some signs pointing this out though, because someone new to town might see them and assume they're just a cleaning crew.

Much of the criticism we receive is deserved, and it's a lot easier to fix problems that are openly acknowledged. I'm all about burying hatchets and moving forward. I don't believe Larkin thought he had a scoop here. The piece focuses on two councilmen who are pointing out that this free fall has continued unabated in the years since the crash. It wasn't an event, it's an ongoing process. Mr. Brancatelli suggests that city hall isn't as attentive to this as it perhaps could be. I think he's right. Much has been spent in the past few years that could have instead been focused on clearance or rehab. This is the danger of not fully acknowledging the problem.

One thing not being considered in these comparisons is that Cleveland's densest housing area is 5 miles west of center, and Lakewood is more dense overall than anything between it and downtown, including Battery Park. Why things ended up like that I'll never know. But that's why there are 2 highways for the west shore, and that's why the shoreway's traffic is so concentrated into rush hour. Keep in mind that reduced shoreway traffic in recent decades coincided with reduced jobs and retail downtown, which is not the current trend or goal. For those suggesting that 90 will absorb the shoreway's volume, consider that W117th already backs up from 90 to Madison at times. Too much stoppage added for that 1-entrance Target complex. The people who oppose (only certain aspects of) this aren't doing so because they're against progress, and painting that picture is just not helpful at all. The arguments against bridges here aren't particularly strong-- yes they should probably span the tracks too, and no there doesn't need to be one for every block-- so I don't advise cutting off consideration of alternatives quite yet. If there's a way for everyone to win, shouldn't that be the goal?

Larkin isn't exactly wrong on this one. It is what it is. The sooner we can remove all these houses and add apartment stock, the better off we'll be. And I think it's worth considering whether one or two large sections of the east side should be cleared (streets & all) and converted into parks. For all the individual and institutional causes of the housing crisis nationwide, a lot of Cleveland's problem stems from its overstock of obsolete duplexes. There's no bringing those back. Much of the city needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Agreed. "The Forest City" is so much classier than any alternative I've heard. The image we should be building is one of elegance, and I don't think people realize how much elegance is here. That gap creates an opportunity. Beyond the environmental movement, I'd like to see us highlight progressiveness in general, especially toward places down South and out West. That might net us a few of their young people. Targeted messages is a great idea.

Agree about Norton being a big improvement... but the HealthLine doesn't need any more stops. If anything I'd remove a few.