Foraker

Maybe now that there is more recreational activity on the river we can put some effort into improvements between the water and the downtown street level.

The final height is about double the Halle Hanna building, the building on the right in Paul's picture above. The Lumen is currently on the 17th floor, going to 34 -- it's going to double it's current height. So yes, they probably will have to raise the crane a bit more.

The park was in the previous version, but hidden behind more building. I think it's better visible from the street. With the stair tower from the garage opening onto this park, it will see foot traffic, and also could be a performance space extension from Nighttown. Who knows. That stair tower is pretty skinny, and totally uninspired. At one of the meetings the developer said that they had to keep a certain percentage of the garage open to avoid having to add mechanical ventilation ($$$), which is understandable. Some perforated screen could be added later if it turns out to be too horrendous. (It's a fixable problem.) In addition to the park, I see a few major improvements in this design. The big building on the corner steps down more gradually from the point toward Nighttown. In fact, that big building's design went from two masses to three and there are now better sight lines down Cedar toward Case. All in all, it's nice to see improvements that the community asked for. I agree that there could be further improvements, but on balance I think the city is far better off if this gets built rather than not. Community meeting on Tuesday (and hopefully we get more substantive comments than "it's ugly, I hate it," but I expect a lot of that). Possible "final" approval at the ABR meeting on July 9. See you there! Also agree that the process was not confidence-inspiring and many citizens feel that the city is not giving enough weight to the feelings of the community, particularly in the immediate neighborhood. The city really could have been a little more forthcoming earlier on and more often. And the city CDC was not a partner with the city in this project, which is a shame since FutureHeights has a great reputation for community outreach. All of this is part of the reason for the recent push for an elected mayor.

There are a lot of improvements in this design, such as in the pocket park by Nighttown. That is really great compared to the first iteration. Carried over from the prior design, I like the inset balconies as well. I also like how the largest building is set back a bit at the point and has a portion that steps up to the larger mass, and the buildings step down in height progressing up Cedar. The curve of the large building also provides sightlines down Cedar and across the intersection. There's a lot not to like as well -- less variation in the materials, blandness of the buildings fronting Euclid Heights Blvd., skinny bland stair tower in the pocket park. Why did they move the pool from the second floor protrusion on the tallest tower to the roof? Had to be an expensive change. I also don't like the extension-balcony change along the drive to the parking garage; or the stairs going into the building from Euclid Heights which just seems very unfriendly and the building already looks bland and institutional. The large building should have more variation in the materials/design -- I liked the previous iteration in that regard. Public meeting on Tuesday -- I expect the city to receive another earful about how awful this design is. I think some minor tweaking could bring it to something pretty great though -- and I'd definitely take this design over no design. Fingers crossed.

This street is screaming for a pedestrian refuge in the middle -- or obscenely long red lights and no turns on red to permit pedestrians to cross safely. So clearly unfriendly to pedestrians that I sincerely hope the author of this image does not think it is a good example of "pedestrian amenities."

*Comment moved to global warming.

Water -- I carry a couple of water bottles (old gatorade or other plastic bottles work fine), and Potable Aqua (chlorine) tablets. I also have a Platypus filter that is pretty nice for groups, and I have used the Katadyn Gravity Camp filter and it's even nicer. Tablets are easiest and you can use a bandana to filter out any large particles -- works just fine but water may not be clear. Food -- mostly dehydrated stuff. instant soups, potatoes, ramen, mac n cheese. Jerky. Granola bars for lunch. You can find dehydrated vegetables and things in some grocery stores. You can also find dehydrated/concentrated tomato sauce and other things that basically cut weight by cutting out the water. I have, however, been known to carry a steak or two for short trips -- worth the weight. Starbucks VIA instant coffee and powdered creamer works pretty well. Here where it's really wet and there's no fire danger I will sometimes build a fire. I always want hot water and sometimes that is enough. Learning how to build a small fire with twigs and small sticks is a valuable skill. Fritos corn chips make decent fire starters and also are good snacks for emergencies. Just remember to pack out all the waste as well.I also have an MSR Whisperlite backpacking stove that uses coleman fuel (available at Dick's Sporting Goods, etc.) and have used a Peak 1 stove (works just like the old coleman stoves). Just need one lightweight aluminum pot if you're just heating water. There are endless debates on gear on the internet. Don't overthink it or spend too much money at the start.

Ah, yes -- if you're in Southeastern Ohio then you should look into Wayne State Forest. Also West Virginia has some nice areas -- check out Dolly Sods. I agree with others here -- weight isn't everything. You will not have as much fun if you're carrying 100lbs, but at some point you're sacrificing durability or comfort to go ultralight. My packs for three-five days tend to be in the 30-40lb range. And there's quite a lot you can do with Walmart specials; no need to go crazy with some of the ultralight equipment from the start. More cost-effective to upgrade over time. I have a Eureka tent that works really well for me, and I'll always take it if there's any chance of wet weather even though it's a "heavy" 4lbs. But if the weather is nice, I might just take a tarp and a ground sheet I made myself out of leftover tyvek (that has now seen enough use that it's no longer crinkly).

I recently saw an article about a transit system in Asia, maybe Hong Kong or Malaysia, where the transit authority also owned/managed/developed real estate along the right of way and that was how they kept fares really low. Why couldn't we do that here? Let RTA buy properties within 1/4 mile or so of a major route or transit center for $1, sell or sell development rights and use the proceeds to help fund the system. What about a pilot program between Tower City and Shaker -- give RTA first dibs on any land bank properties within a certain distance from a rail station.

In general, Ohio campgrounds seem to be more geared to the RV and car-camping crowd. If you want to camp out in the woods, you'll find better campgrounds outside the state. I know some boy scouts who go backpacking in Pennsylvania all the time -- the Laurel Highlands Trail starts on the other side of Pittsburgh and runs for 40+ miles with established camping areas about every 8 miles. if you want even more wilderness, try Hickory Creek Wilderness Area in PA. Start small -- drive out on Saturday, hike into the woods with everything you need on your back. Get off the trail and make camp. Cook dinner. Sleep. Cook breakfast. Break camp. Hike back to your car in the morning. What worked? What didn't? Next time go further.... REI and Appalachian Outfitters and sometimes the Metroparks have beginning backpacking classes and trips. Make some friends, head out.

Part of the emphasis on parking is a result of the success of existing businesses in the area - including Luna, Barrio, and the Fairmount, leading to lots of parking headaches for residents on the side streets. Thankfully the parking structure is mostly hidden and the surface parking will be fairly small.

https://www.toledoblade.com/business/agriculture/2019/06/08/2019-corn-crop-could-be-a-wash/stories/20190607146

Looking at the windows being inset between the floor plates, I hope they don't skimp on insulation on the outer edges of the floor plates -- or the floor is going to be really cold near the windows in the winter!

That makes a pretty big vacant parcel between Woodhill and the tracks, just down the hill from the Woodhill Estates, which also is being evaluated for renovations. I hate to see demolition of our sturdy old industrial architecture, but if there is hazardous materials on site it can be the most cost-effective way to remediate the problem. Redevelopment of this site to bring jobs to that area would be good for everyone.

The Emerald Necklace could be used as an urban growth boundary. Maintaining water/sewer/roads inside the necklace (the vast majority of Cuyahoga County) should take precedence; further development outside the necklace should be discouraged. And because most of the county is inside that boundary, that could be politically feasible. Thoughts?

That is a significant improvement that we should all celebrate. But we might not get to 97% if the climate change forecasts are correct in calling for more extreme rainfall events than we've seen historically.

Ever the optimist! ?

So you're saying that the best course to a one-train-set future means: 1. buy new trains for the Blue/Green line that could someday operate on a refurbished Red line, 2. use the old Blue/Green line trains during new-train de-bugging on the Blue/Green Line 3. use the old Blue/Green line trains during the refurbishment-in-progress Red line 4. and once Red line stations are complete, retire all the old Red line and Blue/Green line trains Only a 50-year project from today.... but someday maintenance would be more efficient.

I disagree that we should discuss suburban development without discussing the costs of doing so, but I'll respect your request. I did search for "abandoning infrastructure" and no such thread exists. If anyone has any suggestions, please post links.

This discussion is moot because of the way mergers work in Ohio. It's going to be really really hard to merge EC with anyone in the first place, and pretty much impossible to carve out any one neighborhood. We really do need the state to get involved to solve the EC problem, but until the city and county demand it nothing will change.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like there are a lot of streets with a couple of empty lots and a multiple rundown houses that are not in good repair, but not streets that have a "handful of houses where there used to be 100+" That seems like the exception rather than the rule, but I could very well be mistaken. (If I am, it's even more of a tragedy.) I would agree with that. But that's not a solution either. All of these utilities operate within networks, and developers are not managing the utilities. The roads/water/sewer/electric lines still run through the neighborhoods that are not being reinvested in; and those utilities still have to be maintained to keep the network running. The working neighborhood isn't going to be happy about a waterline break depriving them of water whether that break is in their neighborhood or upstream in a dysfunctional neighborhood. Thus the entities responsible for maintaining service in the working neighborhoods will continue to maintain the infrastructure going to them. You can say I'm only looking at a glass half empty, but we're not making any plans to reduce our infrastructure maintenance costs, and redeveloping some neighborhoods or suburban malls does not address the problem of too much infrastructure in the region for the existing population to support. Step one, acknowledge the existence of a problem. Step two, start to look for solutions. The housing crisis led to lots of abandoned and deteriorated homes being destroyed. But the infrastructure is still there. We could build new homes, but we don't have the population to move into them (I would not count on any suburbanites wanting to move to any non-downtown, non-UC neighborhoods right now). So maybe we should look at areas with lots of vacant lots and buy out the holdouts, then rip out some of the infrastructure and build parks, or consolidate blocks of land and build some giant warehouses and light industrial parks in such a way that we can remove some of the streets or some of the water and sewer lines. Buying out people who don't want to leave their homes is hard, and expensive. Maybe we think longer term -- the buyout happens upon death or a move by the current owners. So an area won't be redeveloped for 20-50 years, we have lots of places that need redevelopment. Maybe we continue to add land to the Emerald Necklace and can remove some infrastructure in the process. A larger, more contiguous park increases the quality of our parks and may make Cleveland even more attractive to outsiders. Maybe we also require developers to retire infrastructure in order to add infrastructure. What are some other ideas?

Just to be clear, the Forest Hill neighborhood extends into a relatively small part of East Cleveland. In my opinion, the real investment value (growth opportunity) in East Cleveland is along Euclid Avenue (particularly near UC, but not exclusively) and Nela Park -- neither of which is part of Forest Hill. I'm not advocating for CH taking over all of Forest Hill, I'm just pointing out that if that were to happen it wouldn't significantly change the value of East Cleveland. I would also add that while the Forest Hill neighborhood is more stable than some portions of EC, it has its own problems that the neighborhood association there has been trying to address -- and at one point some were advocating for seceding from CH because they felt they weren't getting enough support. Point being, don't mistake the Forest Hill neighborhood for East Cleveland's pot o' gold.

I feel like we're talking past one another. I don't disagree that we should build more densely in some areas -- I'm all in on making better use of existing infrastructure. But because we have ALREADY built more infrastructure than the existing population can afford to maintain in good condition, choosing not to build more infrastructure (choosing not to create more sprawl) is insufficient by itself to put us in a sustainable position. (Why do I say we already have too much infrastructure --- https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/northeast-ohio-infrastructure-gets-d/) If you have a mortgage, then using your old car instead of buying a new one is a good idea but it's insufficient by itself to reduce the debt. In other words, while making better use of existing infrastructure by building more densely in some areas is a good thing, it doesn't decrease the overall maintenance expense. As another example, let's assume that it costs $100 to maintain the roads and utilities in good condition from downtown to Richmond Mall. If we build more densely at Richmond Mall to make use of that existing under-utilized infrastructure, that does not change how much it costs to maintain the roads and utilities in good condition. We still have to spend $100 to maintain those roads and utilities in good condition. The expense side of the equation hasn't changed. So if we're not going to decrease the expense side, we have to look at the revenue side. While it doesn't reduce our infrastructure costs to build more densely, it might help on the revenue side -- if we can draw people from outside the region it may increase the tax-paying population (which every city says that they would like to do), or if it draws people from other areas of the region in sufficient numbers that we can abandon or allow the infrastructure they left behind to degrade. And it is this latter point that not very many people are talking about yet and I think we should be. Unfortunately, I see no sign that we are going to improve the revenue side -- we will have a fixed population in Northeast Ohio for the foreseeable future (although that may be overly optimistic) and a fixed amount of money to spend on infrastructure (no new taxes, no significant bump in median income to generate significant new revenues -- in fact, the Ohio legislature has promised to lower taxes even further, putting more of the burden on local governments and making this discussion even more important). If we're not going to increase the revenue side, we have to decrease the expense side. That means abandoning and/or degrading the quality of some infrastructure (gravel roads? lots over X acreage cut off from public sewers and sent back to septic tanks?) to get to a sustainable balance. Does that make sense, or do you have another explanation for how building more densely is going to solve this maintenance-expense problem?

You are completely missing my point. I'm not using Richmond Mall as an example. Re-imagining Richmond Mall to make better use of existing infrastructure is a good idea. This is not about Richmond Mall or its renovation. Try, try again -- the Greater Cleveland area has more infrastructure than we can afford to maintain in good condition. (And the Ohio legislature has promised to lower taxes again, so this is going to become a more local problem.) When and how do we start talking about reducing our infrastructure obligations?

The word "Richmond" was apparently a distraction. Let me fix that and emphasize some important concerns. Assuming no pot of gold, the inability to maintain our current infrastructure means we have too much to maintain. What are we going to start tearing down or downgrading? Residential streets back to gravel? Many will scoff at that idea, but Ohio's preference for further tax cuts and less infrastructure spending means that that is where we are heading.