Foraker

Interesting video with examples of non-sprawling suburbs in Europe. Imagine if the van Sweringens had built more density along the green and blue lines!

Yeah, Paul Volpe. His heart is in the right place. The edge of the park space on Meadowbrook is delineated by an ATT easement that caused a lot of problems in prior attempts to develop the Lee-Meadowbrook lot. In other words, rather than deal with a difficult ATT, they just stopped the building short of the easement. How the park space is ultimately designed will be critical to how much it is loved/hated/used. FutureHeights commissioned a plan to rehab the park by Boss Dog, but has not been able to get authorization from the city to actually do anything there (that "park" is actually where Cedarbrook used to go through to Lee Rd., and the city owns that right-of-way). To your point about the pedestrian experience along the "new" street/alley and on Tullamore, I have heard a rumor that the city planning director, Eric Zamft, is interested in finding ways for the City to do or work with the developer to improve the pedestrian experience on the periphery of this project. So public pressure and suggestions would be welcomed. Looking forward to hearing how tonight's meeting goes -- anyone interested should submit comments today and maybe those comments will be addressed.

I have heard that there are new drawings, but hadn't seen them until you prompted me to go look. Looks like new site plans are up on the development's website. https://www.clevelandheights.com/1154/Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook Much improved -- it looks like they DID get control of those vacant buildings on Cedar Rd. Huge win. The new plan eliminates the buildings wrapping the parking garage, adding a dog park instead. Building on Meadowbrook lot looks the same. I think there should be pedestrian access from Cedarbrook and it is not clear to me whether there is pedestrian access between the Cedar-Lee lot building and the parking garage, and in the concept diagram it looks like this is a service area, which might not be a very nice or safe pedestrian passage. https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/10146/Updated-Preliminary-Site-Plan?bidId= https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/10145/Updated-Development-Concept-Diagram?bidId=

Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook project news: At Monday night’s City Council meeting, Council authorized the City Manager to enter into the Development Agreement with Flaherty & Collins. The project now moves to the formal design review and approval process. Upcoming meetings in December: Wednesday, December 8th 7 PM – Planning Commission: preliminary presentation on the project by the Developer. The public will be able to comment at this meeting. The meeting will be online: https://clvhts.webex.com/clvhts/j.php?MTID=m6988fecf8bff76ebefeec24c19c539c3 Tuesday, December 14th 6 PM, Community Center – Parking & Traffic Workshop #2: City's consultant team will present the preliminary results of the parking and traffic studies. The public will be able to interact, ask questions, and comment at this meeting. The meeting will be in-person. Tuesday, December 21st 7 PM – Architectural Board of Review (ABR): preliminary presentation on the architectural design of the project by the Developer. The public will be able to comment at this meeting. The meeting will be online. A link will be posted on the City’s calendar prior to the meeting date. There will be no votes or approvals at any of these meetings in December. However, these meetings present important opportunities for the public to comment on and weigh in on the site planning and urban design of the project before the plan is finalized. To that end, the city is asking that the public sends its comments to [email protected] with a subject line of “Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook Comments” and/or submit a comment via the form on the project webpage: www.clevelandheights.com/clm

If you open that photo on the left you can see the new college student housing across Euclid Heights Blvd. from Top of the Hill.

Unfortunately, I agree. I also wonder how the developer's return-on-investment requirements have changed from the 1920s to the 1950s to today. Are they demanding faster and higher returns?

Study finds correlation between gas prices and obesity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629621004084?via%3Dihub One more reason to invest in transit.

The state government seems to be leaning anti-rail (ha!), so state support seems highly unlikely. We'll need to keep working convincing the state government to change their mind while at the same time find a way to work around them. Could the county port authorities along the route join together to provide operating support, at least for a trial? Maybe the county port authorities along the route provide support for two years and if the ridership numbers hit a certain number the state would agree to take over. Or at least if the numbers are good maybe city and county governments along the route would be better able to justify the ongoing expense to local voters. All "services" cost money -- someone has to be willing to pay for the service.

I don't think we've had a problem of guys looking ahead to the NFL, although I do agree that the team is pretty young because a lot of guys move on after their junior year. The biggest example of that is that there was only one starter on this team who had played against Michigan! That had to be a factor. The defense never quite put together a complete package this year. I think their stats look better than they should because the offense scored early and opponents abandoned the run game and quickly became one-dimensional and much easier to defend. Thankfully, there's pretty wide acceptance that the defense did not meet expectations this year, and I expect we'll see some offseason changes in the defensive coaching staff. This team seems to be very "team first" without any egos or superstars. The wide receivers, for example, have been a very tight group despite the strong potential for egos and competition for playing time. Let's see how they bounce back for the bowl game. Hopefully we see some evidence of shoring up their weaknesses and how they react to the loss -- do they come out hungry to win.

Good observation, but I think the effective pass rush early cut the number of long-ball plays called. But hitting just one or two more, particularly early, might have made a big difference. It's tough for any team to stay "up" for a bunch of big games in a row. Penn State, Michigan State, and then out of gas for Michigan. Michigan played better than usual and Ohio State played worse than usual. Even so, the game was close enough that if they played again it wouldn't take much difference in play to flip the score. Michigan is already providing a lot of bulletin board material for next year with Harbaugh's "third base" comments and the offensive coordinator's "They're not a tough team." Looking forward to next year.

Maybe we will just have to disagree on this, but I don't think that people live in the suburbs because they are indicating a considered preference for it as a middle ground utopia between "city living" and "country living." I think they do it because society sells owning your own home with a nice lawn, two cars, a mortgage, and no in the neighborhood who is too different, as something we should all reach for. A lot of people have grown up in that world and have bought into it, without any experience with alternatives. The history behind the creation of the auto-centric sprawling suburbs is complex, but includes a post-WWII need for a large supply of housing quickly, rapid increase in car ownership, overcrowding within cities, racial tensions, development of interstate highways, changes in employment patterns, etc. It's not as simple as "I really wish they'd build something in the middle ground between city and rural living!" The suburban-sprawlers are not reading UrbanOhio and we're not going to bring them into our fold on this forum. I do appreciate that "preaching to the choir" doesn't change that and there is a tendency to do that here, but it happens with groups everywhere so there must be something comforting in doing so! I'll follow your lead though -- let's try to discuss the problems of urbanism/density, which you have defined as Maybe we're not working with the same definition of "urbanism"? -- are you equating "urbanism" as meaning downtown living? I think that is but one subset, to me urbanism also includes Ohio City/Tremont/Lakewood -- I include the inner-ring suburbs that have a mix of residential and small businesses in close proximity. I don't think these problems you've listed are necessarily problems of urbanism, as I tried to explain above. Let's look at each of your identified problems. "Little space to yourself" is a problem of not having a large enough supply of housing to drive down the price so that people can have that space within a larger building or more living space on a smaller lot. What do we choose or allow to be built? Having more space within an urban setting is possible. You can still live in a dense-enough place and have private space. I think we've already discussed the need for more green space and more quality green space outside. I think that is a universal problem not limited to urban living -- the suburbanites are just quicker to jump in the car and drive to a park. But we do not need low-density parks immediately adjacent red line stations. I've lived in a really small town, too -- and talk about lack of privacy. Everyone knows everyone and what everyone is up to. You said you live downtown and don't even see the same people in the elevator -- can you explain how you have less privacy? Do you talk to these people you see in the elevator? Have you make efforts to know everyone on your floor? At least when I was in Lakewood I could take a couple of steps nextdoor and talk to my neighbor any time I wanted to, and we had somewhat regular block parties with lots of neighbors. But I could also retreat to my house or enjoy my backyard and choose NOT to interact with my neighbors, no different than in the outer suburbs, but the walk next door was shorter (and I could take a short walk to a lot more neighbors and the local bar). Yet you say this is the ? My experiences also don't match yours of "suburbanites want to know their neighbors." That was more true for me in Lakewood. When I lived in an outer suburb of Columbus, I might nod to a neighbor while mowing my lawn but we all got in our cars in our attached garages a hundred yards apart and drove to work/school/store and rarely had any significant interaction. There were no sidewalks and nothing you could walk to -- although people did "walk" in the street. The houses were set back far enough that you couldn't sit on the porch and talk to anyone walking by. "Friendly wave" was the extent of our "interaction" with all but our immediate neighbors. We usually came home and headed to our private decks and private big-screen TVs. Maybe I'd make the trek over to one of my immediate neighbors to discuss a problem tree or ask to borrow a tool, but we were far enough apart that we weren't very close. Certainly we never had block parties or really interacted with anyone other than our immediate neighbors. I don't currently have any significant light or noise pollution. In the small town, Lakewood, and suburban Columbus, we had pretty much the same streetlights and never saw the Milky Way. There may be more lights downtown -- I haven't lived in a city center yet. What is the cause of the increased light pollution you're referring to? In my experience most environmental noise is very location dependent -- near a factory, airport, highway, busy road. I don't think that it is that much harder to find a quieter place to live in a city than in a suburb. You can always have the unfortunate inconsiderate neighbor and crappy construction that doesn't block outside noise well. That's not limited to urban settings or higher density. In contrast to Cleveland in the early 1940s, cities are not so crowded today. But we have under-invested in our cities for decades, so there is plenty of room for improvement, including that almost all of our cities, indeed every "neighborhood," needs better greenspace. But more green space in the city is not driving the demand for housing in downtown Cleveland or University Circle and won't pull suburbanites from Avon to Hough. Maybe the draw is the increased interaction of more people, more restaurants, more arts events, less maintenance in a condo than in a detached single-family, and less (or no) driving. We need our cities to be better places and to have better places for people. It may take generations to convince people that cities can be better places to live, but we have to work to make the cities better. And that includes better transit, which requires more people living and working within walking distance of transit stops. That doesn't mean that every city resident has to live in a high rise. Or that there also shouldn't be parks and wooded areas. Lakewood and Shaker certainly have plenty of large single-family houses with large lawns. (I'd say suburbanites don't like the taxes in Shaker, the density at Van Aken is not driving people away from Shaker. ) The opportunity for a wider variety of housing types can also make a city attractive. But successful, high quality urban living does require a certain level of density, particularly in a downtown core and adjacent transit stations. There's no way around that. The Rapid in Cleveland suffers from having too many stations with too few jobs and residents within walking distance. But that doesn't mean that the area around those stations or the entire city has to be highrise condos and zero single-family homes with private yards.

Disappointing, but not surprising. I don't think we faced any big running teams this year, and with our passing offense we got ahead early so teams quickly went away from running the ball. While there was a lot of emphasis on defensive failings this morning (as after Oregon), I was most disappointed in the O-line play -- penalties and lack of push on run plays were devastating. I've been worried about our run game all year. Particularly inside the 10-yard line -- this was not a new problem. If we had converted those two field-goal drives to touchdowns we would've tied Michigan late in the game. We seemed to have been using the passing game to open up the run game rather than the reverse. It seemed like we got a lot of run yards in the second half in many games, after the game was already in hand. I hated watching the old Woody Hayes offenses, but I'm a strong believer in putting a lot of emphasis on the run early because it wears down the defense and means a slower pass rush in the second half. Maybe our O-line just isn't good enough, or RPO plays slow down the O-line push, or we just gave up on the run game too early yesterday. Michigan seemed to be riding their fans' enthusiasm and running downhill all game, playing above their average. Congrats to Michigan and best of luck in the championship and playoffs. Looking forward to returning the favor next year -- here's hoping they come to Columbus undefeated. Despite all their faults, the Buckeyes will not be a team that anyone will want to face in a bowl game. Looking forward to a good matchup on New Year's Day. Auburn? Oregon rematch? Notre Dame?

I don't think there is any denial that some of those "disadvantages" exist in some dense developments. While those disadvantages you mention are real, they can and should be managed and addressed. If we had a larger supply of high-quality quality of life denser development there wouldn't be so much opposition, which I think includes a lot of fear of the unknown. Higher density development needs just as much, if not more, thought put into those needs for privacy and greenspace that single-family development needs. As a society we have chosen to allow lower-quality and lower-density development. We can and should choose to do better -- which is what a lot of the people on this forum are urging. There are corresponding disadvantages in quality of life in car-centric suburbia too -- isolation, car-driven noise, and the need to have a car to get to a large public park, coffee shop, etc. Additionally, the far-flung car-oriented suburban development pattern that is the biggest driver of sprawl is financially unsustainable over the long term -- 50 to 100 years. So even if lots of people like that lifestyle, it will eventually fail. That point has been made in this forum as well. As a society we also are bad at thinking that far ahead. I have found a lot of new US multi-family housing to be cheaply constructed, so you hear your neighbors far too often (or always). But multi-family housing can be very well isolated within individual units when built to a high standard. Same with private indoor spaces -- we don't have to live in studio apartments and shouldn't be limited to the standard cookie-cutter apartments that mass-market developers prefer to build to a lowest-cost standard. Density also doesn't mean you have to constantly interact with strangers. When I lived in Lakewood I had neighbors across a driveway and unless I had my windows open I wouldn't even have known they were there. Even in the middle of summer, grilling and hanging out on the back deck I could go weeks without ever having to interact with my neighbors, much less strangers. I could even take the bus into downtown without speaking to anyone. Earbuds and smart phones were abundant and people generally keep to themselves. As with fears of crime, the reality is not nearly as bad. Park space is important, and I agree that people need places to be alone with nature. Pocket parks alone are insufficient. A well-manicured yard in a lot of suburban developments, where you can only get to wooded areas by car, also are insufficient substitutes. But there are public parks in the urban neighborhoods. Lakewood Park is great. And the Shaker Lakes park has few places that are out of sight of the road, but a lot of places to sit and enjoy nature that are far-enough removed from the roadway to feel pretty private. And that is not a huge park. We probably do need more parks, I don't think too many will disagree (unless it's their property that someone wants turned into a park!) And we are seeing new parks being built so there is some recognition that this is a need in the city. Single-family housing is not going to disappear. The large homes in Shaker have been around for nearly 100 years, more in some cases, and they are not going to disappear. People will continue to have that option, and there's plenty of supply. Even "bicycle heaven" -- the Netherlands -- has lots of single-family housing on larger lots, usually outside the city center. What we're lacking in the mix of housing options here is high quality, high-density housing options near mass transit. And higher density near transit stations is necessary for transit's long-term success. That higher density doesn't mean Manhattan-like towers, but something more like row houses or four-to-six story apartment/condo buildings within a ten-minute old-lady walk distance from our transit stations. Think Washington, DC. Paris. That kind of density, with walkable business districts around transit stops. There is plenty of room for single-family housing to continue to exist further out (preferably a bike-ride away rather than requiring a car for every destination).

To be clear, I don't know of anyone who wants density because of density. They want density because of the advantages that it provides, including (1) it is cheaper to maintain the infrastructure if more people live in an area, and (2) they want to live closer to where they work and shop and hang out with friends. An entire development of suburban McMansion-type lots is inefficient because very few homeowners can actually afford the cost to maintain the roadways and utilities that they need to have that kind of spacing that necessitates personal cars and longer runs of water, sewer, electric, etc. There are ways to build larger 5-bedroom homes in higher density without getting to Manhattan or Hong Kong densities -- Columbus's Victorian Village may be one example. Those kinds of homes just aren't being built in the US any more. Even with that density you can still have private outdoor space and live near parks that everyone can enjoy. But you're right, there are people who think they "need" a McMansion on a giant lot. One way to meet the needs of those who want a suburban-style McMansion is to scatter them within a city that also includes Lakewood-style 50'-wide lots, with 5-6 story apartment and condo buildings immediately adjacent walkable business districts. The key is not to build "only" McMansions and to make sure even those McMansions are within walking distance of a local walkable business district (which probably requires a higher density in close proximity to be successful) and public parks. Maybe those infill McMansions between Chester and Hough were more forward-thinking than we thought...

Agreed. There are racial and political-balance problems with these maps -- this is not just partisan nitpicking, it's part of the Voting Rights Act and the new Ohio Constitutional district-drawing rules. https://www.statenews.org/2021-09-09/redistricting-commission-adopts-district-maps-that-appear-to-retain-republican-supermajority https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2021/09/23/redistricting-lawsuit-triggers-ohio-supreme-court-review-4-year-statehouse-maps/8418902002/

No, but NOACA choosing to spend money on hyperloop hype would mean less money for other transportation improvements. NOACA should not be spending time or money on basic research.

Bring back the traffic cameras and the vehicle-based rather than driver-based fines.

Agreed!

If you wouldn't want your 5-year-old biking there, then it's not really a good option and additional infrastructure is needed. That may not be practical financially in rural areas and suburban sprawl, but should be a given in the city.

With a HUD project like this, the money has to be spent within a certain window, so I would expect this project to continue to move quickly for the next five years.

OMG -- change trains? Makes you wonder how people get around in London, NYC, Tokyo rail systems.

I drove by this morning after a meeting and it looks like they will have the brick siding up on the main "shadow-tower" within a week or so. It also looked like a lot of the windows are in -- close to buttoning things up for the winter. On the Euclid Heights side, the townhouse buildings (or whatever you call them), look really good. They blend right into the neighborhood and appear to be very well done. The "dog park" brouhaha cracks me up. We'll see, but I don't think it will end up being a dog park. I checked Google Maps today and the Earth view -- still the old image, no sign of Top of the Hill construction. Saved the image for future comparison.

They paid extra to include the shadows -- it's "artistic." And just wait until you see the shadows cast by Top of the Hill. :-) Seriously though, I think the old buildings were built before or during the 1920s and the parking you see there (a bi-level parking garage) was added sometime in the 1980s/early 1990s.

Unfortunately, not a very in-depth interview. Considers herself a planner. Recognizes that aging equipment is a problem. Says RTA needs to "connect the community," not just get people to jobs. Frequency is important. Needs $40m to eliminate fares, needs more reliable source of funding before that can happen. Said "we just need to improve the quality of the service" to increase ridership, but didn't say how RTA is going to get there other than generic "funding, ingenuity, really good planning."

The interstate highway system was not initially intended to go through cities, but near or around them. If we revert to that pattern, what would that look like for Cleveland? From the east, I-90 to I-271 then I-480. Maybe I-71 and I-77 terminate at I-490 into boulevards, and I-90 from I-71 to I-271 is eliminated/downgraded. If I-90 from downtown to I-271 was converted to a boulevard with BRT, we might also make room for rail + TOD -- that would open up a ton of land for redevelopment. Interstates have 12-foot lanes with a 10-foot to 50-foot median and 4-foot+ breakdown lanes -- I-90 east of downtown is about 150 feet wide, and N. and S. Marginal roads add another 50+ feet. A boulevard would be around 70-feet wide, freeing 80-to-130 feet of former right-of-way for rail, parks, or concentrated TOD around rail/BRT stations. How much new development would you need to create new taxable property and reduce maintenance expenses to justify the loss of federal maintenance-assistance? I don't expect to see this ever happening but it's an interesting thought experiment.