327

$35 million to make it "feel like a boulevard" with no functional improvements? Crazy. Why not use that money on the multipurpose trail instead, so that pedestrians and cyclists can gain something from the expenditure? How could the W25th ramp have no funding if $35 million is to be spent meaninglessly?

I'm not quite as impressed as others with the finished product. The mounds seem anything but organic, there's too much concrete, and what is the deal with all that metal frame stuff? Will it eventually have walls and roofs? Vines perhaps? That's what trellises are typically built for. The original rendering shows roofs, but when I stopped there last week there were no roofs and all the chairs had standing water on them.

I don't get how this "undulating ribbon" of open space makes anything more pedestrian friendly. Are people expected to be winded every couple blocks, needing to sit down in the grass? Is this where we're supposed to graze our horses? How does dead space help pedestrians? Is Manhattan somehow hostile to pedestrians? If CSU wants Euclid to be pedestrian friendly, they'd be better off fronting it with buildings that are open to the general public, rather than labs, classrooms or offices. That's how it works in most cities. Look at Ohio State... they keep most of that stuff off of High Street, so that High Street can be welcoming for everyone. I really don't think Rascal House and Peabody's should be replaced with a science building, if what we're going for is residential campus life.

I'm not sure, but I think we should probably not use a message that comes off as "cheap." We keep getting told that new apartments are impossible unless they're $1500 a month, and that's not really cheap anyway. People who are interested will discover our favorable cost of living without too much difficulty. Instead I would focus on the quality of the urban lifestyle people can have here, which would be news to most of the audience. Cherry pick the densest neighborhoods, highlight rail transit, show nightlife that's better than a certain Bulls player says it is.

And it was already being reported about a month ago that some unnamed agent had listed Cleveland among the teams he'd steer players away from, in retribution for the lockout. It's like the small market teams are damned either way. I agree that we'd be better off with Gilbert laying low for awhile, but I'm still sympathetic to his position. EDIT: On second thought, Dan Gilbert is 100% right. Forget laying low. Somebody has to say it and I'm glad it's our guy. Now Chauncey Billups, who just got waived by NY, is openly refusing to play for any non-contender. If any such team dares to claim him he says he'll purposely undermine them. What Chris Paul tried to do was wrong. He was trying to set a precedent that top players don't even need to finish out their contracts with small market teams. That they should be able to congregate wherever, whenever. I say if you're privileged to play in the NBA, or any sports league, part of the deal is you may not always play in your first-choice destination. Having 25 Washington Generals franchises diminishes the entire product that makes your salary possible.

Soap box? I have three stacked up, and an impeccable sense of balance.

Detroit gets virtually no commuter traffic on a normal day so it was largely a substitution of one road for another. An identical road to the proposed boulevard? Of course not, but keep in mind that once the backup has commenced, "traffic calming" measures like stoplights and speed limits don't count for much. People are ignoring intersections and moving 5 mph if at all. The conduit is overwhelmed at that point, and the only solution is for cars to stop showing up at the back of the line, because capacity is a fixed constant. Similar effects are observable downtown after special events. Even on the worst days, backups rarely extend west beyond Bunts Road because it provides spillover to 90. So does 117th, but that's the last one till West Boulevard, which serves poorly as a cut-through. So for all those claiming that these concerns carry no weight because they belong to people in Rocky River (really?), the brunt of this traffic problem would be felt in Edgewater, which is nominally within the city of Cleveland. For Lakewood to be affected at all, Edgewater must first be slammed from end to end. I really don't see this as a city vs suburb issue, and I really don't think we get far by stoking city vs suburb issues anyway. Or Cleveland vs ODOT issues. The fact that people would even consider pushing this at the same time as the innerbelt project suggests that we're throwing logistical concerns out the window, so no quantity of actual traffic nightmares on this route-- which are otherwise rare in Cleveland-- are likely to be persuasive. This has become an us vs them issue driven by emotions. That doesn't help our community, nor does it help the image of the urbanist movement in general. We should be seeking common ground with those who don't share our philosophy. We should be identifying approaches that can win hearts and minds, projects that can make our point without raising new counterpoints. Above all, we should avoid setting up conflicts between Cleveland neighborhoods, or between the city and adjacent communities.

An extra 2-3 minutes would not bother anyone but that isn't what we're talking about. For example, a couple months ago inbound shoreway traffic was diverted onto Lake and Detroit because of a fallen tree. It didn't add 2 or 3 or 10 minutes, it added an hour and a half. Cars and buses were backed up throughout Edgewater and well into Lakewood. People living on the south side of Clifton couldn't exit their driveways or sidestreets. Emergency vehicles have trouble getting around in those conditions too. Another example: a couple years ago, sewer work reduced the shoreway's capacity by about 50% at the bottleneck. Traffic backed up throughout Edgewater and well into Lakewood on a daily basis. That's why people are up in arms... they don't want a honking traffic jam right in front of their house every morning, and they don't want a 5 mile commute to take an hour plus. Is there no compromise possible?

This is one of the few areas in the metro that already has good residential density. A microbrew/distillery would fit in perfectly! Does Sappells own the entire parking lot around its store? That lot is absolutely huge and I've never seen it more than 1/3 utilized. It could easily serve the whole neighborhood, but there's often a tow truck just sitting there like a vulture, waiting to screw somebody.

Traffic flow will always be an issue on a major commuter route... and barring substantial transit expansion, this will always be a major commuter route. Why is it so important to put bikes in the same space as cars instead of adding a multipurpose path? Why is it so important to "access the lake" via crosswalks instead of the tunnels we're already spending so much to renovate? It seems like beneficial compromises are available here. I strongly suggest we don't declare war on ODOT over this. Also please keep in mind that there are adverse local interests as well, before you purport to speak for the entire community. A lot of people living west of the shoreway do not want a boulevard conversion. It is absolutely unfair for their interests to be disregarded to the extent we're reaching here. This is not a Cleveland city street... it's a state highway and two federal highways combined. It belongs to everyone. It belongs to people in Westlake and Peoria too. ODOT is not trying to halt progress, prevent cycling, isolate Lake Erie, or impinge upon Battery Park. Claiming that they are sounds childish. Refusing to compromise with your neighbors doesn't sound too cool either. Surely we can work this out.

^^ Seven Hills shouldn't exist. Problem solved.

I accept that parking is a valid issue. It can be a problem in certain areas. But this isn't one of them... downtown has more than its share, especially during dinner hours. AJ93 brings up a good point, a new garage would compensate nicely if we lost a block of surface lots. The City of Warren built a municipal parking deck several years ago. If Warren can do it, we can too.

Good news, and a good move by Jackson.

The vast anti-density conspiracy strikes again! I'm telling you, it's real and it's the #1 problem in this town. http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,26612.0.html

They might be tanking games at this point. Cardinals is the last one that's remotely winnable and I kinda hope we don't. Our draft position isn't nearly good enough yet. Thank heavens Miami and Carolina are picking up steam. Unfortunately, the Rams will be getting Blackmon no matter what we do. Also unfortunately, none of the QB's behind Luck are all that exciting.

It will be from the west. I love how the shoreway lets you bob and weave through buildings, and this will add a lot to that sensation.

That is by far the coolest looking plan I've ever seen from RTA. My reservations about having so much bus facility frontage along Superior are more than assuaged by the positive impact on Frankfort and West 6. The street life enhancement will be immense and immediate.

I'm curious about the distinction between "lawn" and "meadow." None of that stuff can be built for free, particularly the surface parking, so it seems really wasteful to put it in if the plan is to add residential ASAP. There is public money involved in this project. I'd prefer it were used exclusively on things we actually want. If that means the muddy construction site persists a little longer, I'm OK with that. Money doesn't grow on trees... or in this case, on fields of grass.

Eventually they'll hit Lorain. That'll teach em.

I'm not opposed to diverting resources away from advertising and into physical improvements. I agree that DCA is more valuable than a bunch of TV commercials. But at the moment we actually tax visitors to pay for marketing efforts. If we're going to do that at all, we need to do it well. But given that we do in fact have a bad image, I wouldn't say marketing is the worst possible investment.

And how would you do that? By advancing with the more recent scaled-back version of the plan. Boulevard conversion = No. Multipurpose path, infrastructure improvements, tunnel renovation, W 73rd ramp construction, W 25th ramp reconstruction = Yes. Those living south of the shoreway receive multiple benefits, while those living west of it lose nothing. That's what I call a win/win scenario. I'm not thrilled that our leaders are picking such a huge fight with Columbus over something that doesn't even enjoy broad support locally. If ODOT wanted to run a freeway straight through Shaker Heights, I could maybe understand having a standoff. But realistically, alienating state officials to this extent doesn't seem like a wise course of action unless we plan on seceding. It jeopardizes the less controversial aspects of the shoreway plan as well as lord knows what else in the future. I know, I know, they drew first blood by pointing out that the original plan could have substantial consequences for nearby residents.

I'm supportive of the project's current incarnation. And I think the ghost of prior overreach may be holding it back. A clear statement that "boulevard conversion" is no longer a live issue might help. Fix the ramps, add one for 73rd, do the multipurpose path... I don't think anyone opposes those ideas. But we have too many needs to be tearing up existing assets. That's the sticking point. Why not compromise? Insisting on "boulevard conversion" places the interests of Detroit-Shoreway against those of Edgewater and half of Lakewood. There's no need for that. We have the opportunity to add something for the former while taking nothing away from the latter.

I'm not saying we should call it Borax... but we could probably promote a stronger image somehow.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't market ourselves at all? In that case, just drop the bed tax and call it a day.

Nice try, but this particular "silent majority" is mostly liberal urbanists, many of whom love walking and biking. If this project were framed as a multipurpose path and better access, it would be loved by everyone. Except the teabaggers of course. There's no pleasing them.