Foraker

AND -- is the lakefront the best place for freight rail?

All the more reason to have fewer airports and push development out, away from those airports.

My understanding from talking to CH folks is that the theater space is included (as is the former Baker's Square lot next to city hall, which is the only parcel outside the ring road). The only parcel excluded is the Home Depot. Good idea. Wish you were on the developer's team -- then we'd have a rail station as well! 😄

That's reassuring. I was also pleased to see Larry Nowak of Severance Action Group endorsing this development -- I'm becoming more optimistic. Now the hard part -- waiting for actual plans, and more waiting for construction!

I want to be optimistic, but I'm very worried about this. Namdar ignored their tenants' complaints and did absolutely nothing to maintain their property -- for YEARS. Now they claim to be interested in redeveloping it with a developer with no experience developing this kind of property, at this scale. I would have liked to see Namdar exit the city (tar and feathering is too good for them) and for the city have more control over the redevelopment. We'll see.

Good news. I had to look it up to refresh my memory, but TurnDev (Heller & Keller-Khon) is expected to complete the ArtCraft conversion to Police HQ by summer 2025 (one year). https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/03/cleveland-city-council-to-vote-on-new-police-hq.html

I've heard the same thing about young people in Europe. Apparently "Ohio" is quite the butt of a number of internet memes about crazy old USA.

I share your nostalgia for the days of family-size farms and more FOOD production rather than sugars and alcohols. Corn isn't even the best feedstock for that purpose, but there we are. A larger number of smaller farms would be harder to oversee, and a few big corporate farms are easier to shake down for campaign contributions -- I'm cynical that we'll see any change soon.

Absolutely. But between Shaker and Warrensville it's pretty well developed into large-lot single family homes. There it's not so much a zoning problem as a no-room-to-develop problem. Not insurmountable, but more difficult to add density.

Which -- emphasis on "southern" Europe or climate change? 🙂

Thanks -- that's a lot of information to digest. While it is nice to see downtown become more solidly "dark blue," it's disappointing that there aren't more pockets of blue spaced along the major transit corridors. That is where RTA really needs to be advocating for change, particularly where the zoning is preventing increased density immediately adjacent the stations. Shaker did a great job at Van Aken and they already have Shaker Square at the other end, so it seems like they should "get" the need for and advantages of TOD. But the Green line east of Shaker does not seem to have many opportunities for increased density. And if you can't build TOD along our rail routes, it's really going to be hard to get TOD on the bus routes.

Your article is nearly 2 years old, but it mentions housing density thresholds for high-frequency transit. Do you have a housing density map for Cuyahoga County?

If only the project itself was moving as quickly!

The article is behind a paywall. While I felt a lot better and had a much easier time maintaining my weight while living in a walkable community overseas, why do they particularly call out "southern" Europe? Climate Change is not going to be kind to southern Europe, by the way. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/europe/europe-heat-wave-italy-cerberus-climate-intl/index.html This was just last year -- 104F with no AC would really suck. What's that going to be in another decade?

I have to disagree with your conclusions -- 1) the Fed offered to cover service for three years -- if it turned out not to be financially viable there would have been no reason to continue after three years, but the cost to get the service started was nil, there was no financial risk, Ohio taxpayers are only on the hook for highways, which also don't pay for themselves (both the state and federal highway trust funds have been bailed out with general funds), and 2) KJP and others criticized the estimated ridership as being far too low -- if correct, ridership on the 3C+D could be far higher than those estimates, and if we had taken the Fed dollars Ohio would have had a near-zero cost test to determine whether Ohioans wanted passenger rail and whether they'd be willing to pay for it. I'd also argue that ANY train that is halfway decent will take cars off the road, making the driving experience much better for the cars that remain. In sum, I strongly believe that it was a financially irresponsible decision to decline the federal dollars.

Very disappointing that the city approved this project -- specifically the demolition of the former Carpenter's Union building for more parking. More parking?!?! C'mon Cleveland!

A friend of mine recently changed companies -- from one with a lot of older employees to one with a lot of younger employees. Her personal health situation, deductible, and general level of coverage did not change, she didn't move and she still goes to the same doctor -- but her health insurance cost dropped 40%. WTF, indeed. We could look around the world and see how other countries spend their healthcare dollars, maybe there's a better way? (cough, national health insurance, cough)

The chances of federal control over the rail infrastructure becoming a reality are slim (and none if Trump is reelected). But it needs to be done. The states/local governments will lose tax revenue, but the railroads will be relieved of that maintenance expense and we'll have a true national, interstate view for planning and maintenance of the transportation network.

How hard would it be to revive the interurban? Run from Tower city down the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad route. The Google Maps shows a rail line just east of the highway by CAK -- looks like it runs from Canton north to Akron to around Arlington, just a few miles east of the end of the CVSR and it looks like there could be connecting trackage. If so, that suggests you wouldn't have to start from scratch, even if the rails aren't passenger-grade. And if there is only one track, might have to run a pretty limited schedule, but it could be a nice start. Put a station by the rails, and then run a bus or a people-mover train from there to the CAK airport terminal. At the Cleveland end, you just hop to the Red Line to get to Hopkins.

Humor aside, green space and urban density are not mutually exclusive. I'd argue that Central Park is improved by the density around it, and vice versa. Even well-designed pocket parks or riverwalks can make a big difference to livability around density. I want both -- density and green spaces -- and I think you see that both European and Asian cities have figured out how to do that.

Unless we really unload a pot of money in this state for rail, we're not going to be able to connect all of our 100,000population cities directly with interstate rail. Even on old 1920s maps, when rail was in its heyday here, not every route was an interstate or fast route. Even in Japan, which arguably over-invested in rail (including subway lines), not every train is an express. Akron-Canton-Youngstown should band together to find ways to connect their transit systems to the mainline/interstate routes. The Expert (hi @KJP!) suggests nice stations at Columbiana/SR11, Alliance, and Hudson -- it would seem to make far more sense for these cities to band together to make that happen, and then connect their transit systems to those stations (and if they could form a "local/regional" rail system in the process, that would be great. (I'd really like to see rail lines connecting Hopkins, CAK, and John Glenn to expand my direct-flight options, but I'm not holding my breath. And if there was a nice rail station at CAK, Akron and Canton should already have transit routes there or nearby.) Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems like these three cities are just whining that they aren't on a rail route connecting them to Pittsburgh and Columbus/Cleveland, without pushing an actual proposal for how that could happen. As @KJP mentioned, there's no easy (relatively inexpensive) way to do it. I'd send them back to the drawing board until they can come up with a plan and how they're going to contribute 1/3 of the cost (assuming we can get the state and feds to come up with the other 2/3).

Sorry -- I got the name of the garage wrong after looking at Ethan's photos above -- I meant the garage behind Parnells/Zhug/Starbucks, which is closed for repairs (and is small). Russos built the parking lot behind Firestone, and the lot behind the Cedar-Fairmount Medical building is privately owned. And often at capacity. Buying this parking lot gives the city a parcel of land that it controls. This lot has nothing to do with the grocery store other than that is nearby and owned by the owner of the building who wants to rent space to the grocery. Residents want a grocery in the neighborhood, and the city is sensitive to that. Really, it seems like taking the parking lot is just a way to get "something of value" so that they can give Russo money for Grocery Outlet. (Russo was looking for city assistance to repair and upgrade Russo's very old building in ways to make it an attractive space for Grocery Outlet to occupy. It's of value to the city that large historic buildings be preserved, so the city might get some return over the long term over allowing the building to empty out as it ages. How much value and how much the private owner should bear is controversial.) Does the city need another parking lot? Not really. Is this lot really worth $660k? Probably not. Maybe $400k given its location and condition? -- I'm not a real estate expert, that's just speculation and a WAG on my part. I'm ok with this deal -- it's a lot better than a $1m gift.

The mayor has proposed and city council is considering a deal with Russo to help with bringing a grocer back to Cedar-Fairmount. (Russo had asked for $1m from the city.) City would buy the parking lot behind the Firestone for $660k (approximately $10k per parking space), to preserve public parking and ensure city control of the site. City would provide $340k low-interest (3%) 15-year loan to assist in bringing in Grocery Outlet, that loan being partially offset by 50% of the tax revenue that Grocery Outlet brings in. I think this will be unsatisfactory for both those who think we shouldn't be supporting private property owners to bring in tenants, and those who think the city should be doing more to get a grocery there. Which probably means it's a pretty good deal. The parking lot is nice, and really is needed with the Tullamore garage being closed. And it's good for the city to be in control of that lot for the future. I think this was just presented on a first reading on Monday. https://clevelandheightsoh.portal.civicclerk.com/event/151/files/attachment/1348 https://www.cleveland.com/community/2024/06/cleveland-heights-puts-1-million-deal-on-the-table-for-grocery-outlet-in-old-cedar-fairmount-daves-market-space.html (behind a paywall)

West Virginia is great for people who love the outdoors -- camping, hiking, backpacking, mountain-bike riding, rafting -- it could be a sort of a smaller Colorado-of-the-East. Eco-tourism is a potential growth area. It is hard to get to West Virginia though. Passenger rail access to several "gateway" locations in the state, with resorts/hotels/restaurants/guide services near the stations could help.

True, but it struck me as hilarious in its misdirection/understatement given how massively unbalanced those subsidies are in favor of roads and highways. "Here's a penny for your train, I need the other $1 million for roadways," said The Politician. "We subsidize all forms of transportation!" LOL