327

Actually, that's why I'm never at these things either. 1230. Hmpf. But given that this is a college campus area, and Fridays are usually thin on classes, I'm surprised it didn't draw more students.

Everyone does not agree that this project is vital. A lot of locals are against it, though not strongly enough to attend a meeting and argue their point. ODOT's doing a good job of that already... so we don't need to. I think if it were made clear that new interchanges and bike paths were the extent of it, that might fly. But the notion of a full "boulevard conversion" is not nearly as popular as its proponents seem to believe. Time for a rebranding, perhaps. How about "West Shoreway Upgrade Package?" Everyone likes upgrades.

Controlling for students doesn't leave much, at the moment. I'm guessing most of the attendees you saw were orchestra donors from the hinterlands. Nice of them to come, obviously, but it kinda illustrates a key problem. University Circle doesn't yet have enough people living there, and it lacks the destination buzz among young people that the near west side currently enjoys. Trends are all positive but that's where things still stand today. Also nice to hear about the Opportunity Corridor moving forward. That's been conspicuously quiet compared with all the West Shoreway noise, and I daresay it would have a much larger impact on the city and the region. We need to get our secondary downtown connected to our primary transportation system. I'm as transit-oriented as anybody, but we still have a ways to go before that becomes practical for much of the region's population. Want street life to develop in University Circle? Want it to become broadly relevant? Then roll out the red carpet... or in this case, the concrete carpet. That's something the near west side is able to offer, and frankly it works. Until it's easier to get to, UC's market is somewhat limited to those with business in the immediate area, or those with ties to specific institutions there.

I agree wholeheartedly with that article. Cleveland needs rebranding in the worst possible way. The reality here is far more "exciting" than our national reputation suggests. And I think the article makes some great points as to what might work and what might not. Most major cities have waterfronts... ours does not distinguish us. I'd prefer to never hear "North Coast" again. All that does is invite unfavorable comparisons to the other coasts. Given our climate, any focus on outdoor activities offers limited potential. I mean yeah, the Twin Cities area provides ample opportunity for hunting and ice fishing, which are relatively popular among locals. But that's not the image they've cultivated for tourists. Instead they've focused on cosmopolitan urbanity. I think our best bet lies in that direction, with a pinch of grit added for flavor. Cleveland could become a mecca for young progressives like Portland or Austin. It can stake a claim to being cooler and "realer" than either one.

I'm a gen-X person, a younger one, but old enough to frown upon hipsters. I don't have much common ground with the Cracked article though. It's hard to develop a work ethic when work isn't available. And the fact that any given McDonalds is hiring does little to solve the wider problem. Many will apply, few will get in. Last summer I helped run a jobs program for teens. We had 11,000 applicants for 5000 part-time minimum-wage jobs. It isn't like the kids don't wanna work. More recently I did HR for a nursing home. One ad for entry level aides would yield hundreds of responses, and we had to produce applications by the stack because the volume of walk-ins was so high. And that was before the place was even open. People just saw a new building and came in looking for work.

Jeff Johnson stands up for the Wolfe building! http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/councilman_wants_to_save_build.html

Everyone's starting to get on the same page... and it's my page!

Haven't had a chance to read all the responses here, and frankly I'm late for the bar, but I do see some good defenses of the anti-density mindset. Like shs96, I realize that the classic urban living arrangement isn't for everyone at every stage of their lives. But at the same time, some people do prefer it... some even prefer it throughout their lives, raising kids in such conditions by choice. And I worry that Cleveland is chasing those people away. We need those people. I've never said that non-density shouldn't be allowed anywhere. I just don't understand why people oppose it so strongly right in the heart of downtown. Why can't there be a place for everything? Cleveland could add a two dozen apartment towers and it would still be overwhelmingly a city of detached houses. It wasn't always this way, but that's how far out of balance it is right now. So much density has been lost, and so many single family homes have been added in its place. Density advocates don't insist on razing the suburbs and replacing them with our own personal preference... so why must anti-density advocates hold sway in the core city? Why must Cleveland be redeveloped in its suburbs' image? To each their own. What I'm really pushing for is balance, but we're so far from that at this point that I believe density needs a big boost.

Good points. I guess it's more accurate to say those shows supported prevailing lines of thought, rather than dictating them. But what of overcoming those lines of thought? Seems like some communities have done so. I think part of the difficulty here is that so many of those who may be inclined to support density have moved away. And this is a generalization, but a lot of the people I know who openly support dense urban development in Cleveland aren't originally from here, myself included. Converts aren't being made so much as they're being imported... but that's just a trickle, considering Cleveland's overall population trends. At some point I think we need to 1) import more converts, and 2) convert more locals.

I'm only half joking. From the Cleveland WHD thread, referring to a development presentation by RTA... I find myself raising this in several threads, so I thought I'd put it somewhere. We often talk about lines of thinking that oppose some of the things we tend to support on this forum. Usually it's specific projects. But to what extent is there opposition out there to the very concept of urban density? And isn't that kind of a gateway issue to the types of development we like to see? I'm wondering if maybe the premises we hold most dear could use a PR campaign. I think the anti-density view is pretty dominant in Cleveland, especially among people who really don't care either way. It's the default position. I think this resulted from decades of concerted media effort on the part of automotive and sprawl-building interests. Hollywood in general depicted cities as bad and sprawl as good from the 1950s on, and particularly in the 70s and 80s, when a lot of today's adults grew up. Seinfeld and Friends were credited with resurrecting New York as a setting, after it had taken such a beating in shows like Barney Miller and Taxi, and movies like Taxi Driver. Welcome Back Kotter, Good Times, Sanford & Son, even Fat Albert, all highlighting the downfall of urban areas. So the 70s had shows about people struggling in the ghettos, then the 80s featured generic midwestern suburbs where everything was better. More than suggestion, on that scale and over that time frame it dictated how the world was to be perceived. Bringing it back local... Cleveland's zoning code, allocation of development subsidies, and planning publications have all indicated a preference for low-density development with a decidedly postwar suburban feel. Multiple University Circle projects have encountered objections of some sort due to density or height. Sometimes city hall, sometimes neighborhood orgs. And even when development is somewhat dense, the designers almost go out of their way to mitigate any sense of urbanity. The siding on those new CSU dorms is practically an homage to Eastlake. But there have been positive signs recently, including the planning commission's comments about CSU's current proposal. Also including the RTA proposal from the quote above. So maybe this is the time to have a public discussion about the direction our city should be taking. If the prevailing mood is anti-density, it creates an obstacle for every conceivable improvement. But if our leaders are willing to push back a bit, to take a stand for urban density, they deserve all the help they can get. People need to understand that rebuilding Cleveland with density is not only a viable idea but a better choice. Right now, too many are stuck on the viable idea part.

^ That plan deals mostly in shrubberies... not much detail regarding the roadway itself. Though "traffic calming" is mentioned, as well as somehow "mitigating" the highway, it looks like it would still be a highway. Me too. Well put.

Good insights and a reasonable take. I know "land deals" or some such wording is exempt from Ohio sunshine laws, but it would be nice if the public were a little more privy to what its servants were up to. In the case of FEB, a political check may have been warranted. At this point I'm for practically anything that would get those lots developed. I don't think it should require a bus yard, but in this case we're not actually losing anything, so it feels like a decent compromise... as long as the entire plan gets built along with it.

Thanks for the detailed report. That plan is at least 9x better than I expected. A new residential tower? Now we're talking. And I'm glad someone brought up the street wall of W Superior. Putting the exit on W 3rd helps, that's a good idea.

Put balconies on that thing and it's like you're in New Orleans.

It might make no sense if the property would remain unmarketable. There's a practically-empty tower right across the street. Eaton and Huntington are about to clear out even more of that general area. Our "financial district" needs to diversify. Any possible full-building conversion to residential should get a good look, and if it's at all feasible, should get a high priority in local development subsidies. That plan should already be in place, and the city should be actively promoting it. These are high rises with huge windows and lake views. And they're already built.

Yes. Yes please.

That's what I mean. The whole thing looks like a roof.

This is all great news. Welcome improvements across the board.

Every time I open that front view picture, I expect it to keep loading and get taller. It never does.

That would be a transformative development for downtown.

The church-parking-lot-ification of E 105th was detailed in a Free Times article a few years back. Every time one of these buildings comes down, the neighborhood around it gets further away from revitalization. Without the history and the big-city feel, what exactly are we offering?

First of all, I'm glad there's so much investment going into this area. But this city is practically drowning in affordable single family homes. They're not all new ones, of course, but it's still not what I'd call a major need. I'm just not sure that mortgages are the best way to attract young people, regardless of the incentives attached. Slavic Village does suffer a bit from isolation. The freeways messed it up like no other, cutting it off from downtown. That said, it has a decent array of retail, but too much of that is in plaza form. The historic downtown area has loads of potential but a long way to go. That needs to be a focus, while demolition and car-oriented development should be minimized. The resettlement process would probably go a lot faster if some marketable apartment stock were added. Quality rental options will feed homebuying, giving people a chance to get attached to the neighborhood before they have to commit. If they've enjoyed living in an apartment there, they'll be more inclined to invest long term, if and when they choose to go that route. That comment goes for Cleveland in general, though Slavic Village has added an especially large number of single family homes in recent years.

Bus terminals and rail stations aren't even in the same ballpark, in terms of wanting to be nearby. People rarely want to live near an active truck yard of any kind. They get more traffic than a train station gets and it's all loud & smelly. Plus, I just can't see spending this much money on two new facilities just for buses to idle at.

This project is getting significant support from the public sector. Are you guys worried about ROI for the dorms too? They're dorms, at a public school. Public-private partnership does not mean developers get to do whatever they want. Yes they get the profits, but those profits aren't the only interest at play. We're all putting money into this-- you, me, the lot of us. If a public board says it's too suburban for downtown, that should count for something. I love the fact that at least someone on one of these boards is willing to stand up for better standards in our city, instead of accepting more garbage for the sake of profiting one company. That has to end. If the people want to make a better investment with our money, that's our prerogative. The quality of this development impacts the value of everything else downtown. Sorry, this is not a developer-ocracy. If they want total control over every decision, they can spend their own money.

I personally like the walkway(s), but I agree about Burke.