Foraker

Hey SW -- if you've moved your HQ Tower off of square for security reasons, and you're planning a museum/training center on the Jacobs Lot, UO would like you to consider (this is not a request) making space for a Starbucks on the ground floor facing the square and topping it with a hotel. Thanks!

You may be right about the belief that they wouldn't have any competition. Well said. But still frustrating that the first reaction of so many is just "no, we don't want that here." Would more education (Heights Observer articles?) be effective in changing that?

Nextdoor NIMBYs. They'll also be complaining about Top of the Hill, Severance, Noble Road, the ice rink, the high school renovations, having to pay for parking, free parking, etc., etc. Few will notice that what the city has asked for is suggestions for questions to ask the developers during next week's interviews.

Ironic given that this would bring in more residents (i.e., customers) -- how does that person think that the city can better support the existing businesses?!? (Hint: the existing park has not attracted significant new customers; and at least the Flaherty & Collins + City Architecture design proposes keeping a park at the corner, which is what this person wants! The Panzica + City-Six proposal looks recycled. It doesn't even address the added area, just says they want to do it in "Phase II." Kind of makes it seem like they aren't THAT interested in doing this. The Flaherty & Collins + City Architecture design looks a LOT more thought out. The city has to find a way to add those vacant building lots on Cedar to this project, even if it means overpaying the owners to sell. Still surprised that Flaherty & Collins wants to do another project in Cleveland Heights after all the community NIMBYs and endless community engagement on Top of the Hill. We'll see if the city has learned anything about how to better do community engagement this time. Hopefully they get their CDC, FutureHeights, to do the community engagement piece from the start. Have a set timeline for community input and call it a day.

Agree 100% on the first point. Surprised by the second.

RTA opens and tries to close discussions on eliminating fare collection "because Unions." https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/02/greater-cleveland-rta-debates-whether-fares-are-worth-collecting.html

Generally, I agree. But I also know that an open-air stadium takes a lot of abuse from the weather and almost certainly costs more to maintain. Not to mention isn't used much in the winter months. A closeable stadium would be more useful, and hopefully more durable. And the city and county should not be funding this -- let the billionaire owners' club fund their stadiums.

Khalil Seren first to announce bid for Mayor. https://www.cleveland.com/community/2021/01/cleveland-heights-council-vice-president-khalil-seren-announces-bid-to-become-citys-first-elected-mayor.html

That extra parcel really is necessary (actually two adjoining buildings). Give those owners a piece of the action, but get those properties included in this redevelopment effort.

I think losing Sermon, an injured Fields, and the absence of Smith and Togiai really, really hurt. It would have been a lot more fun to play with a complete team. But even so, 'Bama was the far better team and we likely would still have lost without those hurdles. Props to 'Bama -- let's see if we can get together again next year!

https://codes.ohio.gov/orc/118.31v1 Amelia, Ohio dissolved in response to a 1% tax increase https://www.clermontsun.com/2020/12/21/amelia-council-repeals-income-tax-following-year-long-dissolution-transition

I don't know about that, I think just closing the open side of the square will make a dramatic difference in how the square feels. On the ground it won't matter that much whether the tower is 27 stories or 40.

My understanding is that because it already had a drive-thru the city couldn't retroactively prohibit it. They should have changed the zoning immediately after the bank closed, then it might be a different story. I'm also interested in seeing some development across the street from Top of the Hill -- but maybe the land there is too narrow for development unless someone is really creative and they can omit parking. (I'd also like to see Cedar narrowed and the sidewalk widened on the north side, but I expect that that is a pipe dream for now.)

I think there has been some misunderstanding in the rush to report this. Brendan sold the properties to a developer, and the developer is in negotiation with a local chef to own the restaurant. https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2021/01/nighttown-sold-cleveland-heights-restaurant-dates-to-1965.html During last night's city council meeting, they mentioned that Brendan plans to continue to be involved and will work with the developer on some updates to Nighttown, hoping to keep the same feel while making some needed improvements (kitchen may need updating, the electric and plumbing is probably dated, etc. -- so even a significant investment doesn't necessarily mean a dramatic change to the decor). They also said that the new owner hopes to reopen Nighttown in July. It will be interesting to see what plans the new owner has for the buildings between Nighttown and the new Chipotle. Expand Nighttown to the east slightly for a bigger stage and more seating? Some other new construction? Let the speculation begin...

I agree that fewer curb cuts is safer for pedestrians because there are fewer pedestrian-vehicle crossings. Reducing curb cuts is not bad. I did not intend to suggest that having more curb cuts makes it safer. Rather, I was just pointing out that while fewer curb cuts is SAFER for pedestrians, if it leads to higher traffic speeds it will be a lot less PLEASANT to be on the sidewalk. (Personally, as a pedestrian I do not feel that safe walking beside 50mph traffic, unless there is a physical barrier, and even then it is not a pleasant place to be -- try walking between the West Side Market and Progressive Field.) Here's further explanation of my thinking. Speed limits and traffic lights don't do a lot to control speed. Traffic lights seem to control traffic flow more than speed. Despite regular stop lights on Chester Ave. between E105 and E55, 50mph is not uncommon despite the 35mph speed limit. It also seems that traffic on the Shoreway travels well above the posted speed limit most of the time. You can put a 25mph speed limit on the Shoreway and traffic speeds probably won't change. Roadway design is a more significant factor in how fast drivers travel -- how wide open the roadway feels, the number of potential disruptions to flow (parallel-parked cars pulling out, doors opening, potential for a kid or dog darting out between parked cars, intersections and curb cuts where a vehicle may emerge), lane width, roadway condition, direct line of sight, etc. (I also suspect that more sound insulation in today's cars and more powerful engines probably also contribute to increased speed.) Despite lots of curb cuts, traffic slows as it moves through Larchmere (or the Coventry business district, or Little Italy) because the narrow roadway, multiple intersections, and parked cars signal drivers to slow down and watch out for surprise potential conflicts. Fewer curb cuts means less potential for cars to enter the roadway and force cars on the roadway to slow down -- drivers on the roadway don't have to be as vigilant of entering vehicles. And unless the bike lane is physically separated from the roadway (by more than paint) drivers on the road will have the "feeling" that the roadway is more wide open and will feel comfortable driving faster. And yes, the effect might be minimal in only 580 feet. But if the future vision for S. Woodland is further reductions in curb cuts and extending a painted bike lane the future looks a lot faster. I also see cars driving and parking in non-physically-separated bike lanes far too often, and that can make the roadway far more dangerous to a cyclist, particularly at dusk or at night. We like fast roads to get us places (the Shoreway), but we also like quiet commercial and residential district streets (Mayfield Rd through Little Italy). City planners should be thinking about what S. Woodland should be.

While fewer turns might make it safer for pedestrians, it will also encourage even faster traffic and a less pleasant experience for pedestrians to even want to be on Woodland. This suggests a vision for Woodland as a "thruway" to somewhere else (like the Shoreway) rather than a neighborhood street (like Larchmere).

Rockers. Fellers. Rocker Fellers? Rockefellers? 😁

Yes. The bricks that they chose are too smooth. It would be nice if they could be ground or etched without damaging their structural integrity.

MLB baseball is broadcast around the country and around the world. So the advertising of the Cleveland name travels far. The Chiefs and Braves are on their way out, too -- it's just a matter of time. And you're incorrect, historically the name was intended as an insult. Here's just one story: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/some-native-americans-applaud-cleveland-indians-name-change-say-it-n1251183 This country is great for its immigrants and its cultural melting pot, bringing people of all kinds together, respecting and celebrating and learning from our differences. Of course, that did not often extend to the native peoples living here. In changing the name, we can remove an insult to the descendants of those native peoples. It's not about how many of those native Americans or others are offended. And in making this change we can can spare young native Americans from having to hear the insult in the midst of the sports scores. It's not the greatest hardship this city will have to endure.

I've spent some time in Maastricht and really enjoyed it, and learned some things I didn't know, thank you. The old city is a wonderful place, great to see your photos, and I'm sorry we didn't get to see your digital photos as well. It's not directly on the way to anywhere, but I would encourage anyone to take the detour if they are nearby.

I know what you mean, but don't you think that your firefighter union friends might think they were being disparaged? :-) And I still disagree. I think that it doesn't matter what community you're a resident of, people fear losing control of "their" services. So (insert city name -- Parma Heights) has made the choice to pay for their own fire DEPARTMENT rather than risk having (insert neighboring city -- Parma) decide not to put any fire stations within the city limits of Parma Heights. Even if there is no significant change in the actual service offered and it cuts costs. I think this is even more true for police departments than fire, and I think that perception is a bigger hurdle to overcome than any union. You can add garbage collection, water and sewer maintenance, snowplowing, street repair -- residents don't want to call down to the county office to get their problem resolved, they want someone local. So the trick may be, how can we ease into regionalism, and how can we do regionalism in a smart way that doesn't make residents feel like a nameless number facing a large remote bureaucracy. Maybe start by consolidating dispatch for emergency services, but don't make the region too large. Maybe the county only needs one SWAT team. Maybe highrise ladder trucks can be strategically positioned based on the location of highrise buildings without regard to community boundary lines. Coordinate local fire stations with a cluster of communities to meet the NFPA standards, without initially leaving any community without any stations; maybe in another 20-40 years you won't need to replace those stations. Maybe one community agrees to store the salt for a cluster of communities, and another community in the cluster collects and sorts the trash and recycling for transfer to the landfill. It won't be easy. Maybe we just aren't thinking long-term enough -- boil that frog over 50 years rather than despair that we aren't moving to regionalize everything overnight to the level of maximum efficiency we can currently calculate.

I happen to know a Parma Heights fireman. In Parma Heights (and maybe elsewhere) something like 99% of their job is ambulance runs. So looking at just "fires" is missing the larger part of their mission. I also know that the Parma Heights firemen all have certifications as both firemen and EMTs, which is quite different from the situation in the City of Cleveland (although maybe this is changing). I have heard complaints that they were understaffed for a number of years, which probably means more expensive overtime factoring into those pay figures as well. I don't know if it has always been that way (maybe your uncles can weigh in), and I don't know what pay scales are like elsewhere, but I don't think this is a case of a union holding Parma Heights hostage just because almost half the department makes a good living and they don't spend a lot of time fighting fires. I believe that Dispatch has been regionalized to some degree. And not every department has a long-ladder truck, etc. The mutual-aid agreements between cities mean that not every city has to have every piece of equipment or be fully staffed to handle a fire. (I also don't know if Parma charges Parma Heights for coming out for a mutual aid situation -- if everyone is doing almost exclusively EMT runs, I can imagine that all the firefighters in a region are going to WANT to go to every fire that they can!)

Would be helpful if the County could come up with some EC-infrastructure-improvement funds to use as an incentive for Cleveland-EC merger. Repaving is well behind, and some streetscape improvements along the major corridors would be a big help.

I like where you're going with this. Nationalize the routes, nationalize the maintenance, lease operating rights. That should appeal to conservatives who want to level the playing field vs other modes of interstate transport, and if the operating licenses are priced right maybe they could cover most of the maintenance cost. Surely at least as much as the federal gas tax covers the cost of highway maintenance....

This came up in a discussion about the Brown's First Energy stadium, and whether Cleveland could build over the railroad tracks separating downtown from the waterfront. (my highlighting). This reminds me of KJP's plan several years ago to divert freight traffic south of Cleveland (hazardous materials shouldn't be passing so close to our downtown anyway!) If that were to happen, passenger trains could still use that lakefront right of way and Cleveland could build over the tracks -- there is some significant potential there. Enough value in that to pay the freight companies to divert hazardous traffic to another company's line? Is there any way to force hazardous materials away from downtown?