DaninDC

I agree that less people generally live in condos than in houses, but when you build new 10-story apartment and condo buildings on a previously empty lot, how does that thin-out the population? I think the Census, like everything else in the government, is tragically influenced by politics. Namely, the "American Dream" line of BS.

I don't read that quote as being anti-transit. Rather, it seems like Hofmeister is saying there are plenty of empty buses out there burning diesel fuel, which there are. Now, if he said we should get rid of the buses to speed up traffic, THAT would be anti-transit. The real problem, as we enlightened folk know, is not that people aren't taking the bus, but our physical built environment is not conducive (coercive?) to riding transit.

...and our supposed "leadership" at RTA is only too content with the status quo. Calabrese should be the biggest transit advocate in the region. Instead, he rolls over like a half-dead dog. Certainly if Joe called Steve LaTourette on the phone, the Congressman would be more than happy to go to bat for RTA.

Interestingly enough, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, which is even more transit-averse than NOACA, received $100 million of federal money to study and build a commuter transit line between Ann Arbor and Detroit. First-term Sen. Debbie Stabenow secured the funding. Are we to believe northeast Ohio doesn't have Congressional representation at least as powerful and influential as Stabenow?

Back in the 1950s, when the Interstate Highway System was proposed, it was believed that the Interstates would permanently relieve all road congestion. How is this "new" idea any different from the same, regressive thinking we've been seeing from Mineta's DOT? If these corridors are on land, they will be traffic-choked, and require enormous amounts of real-estate (much more than rail!). If the corridors are in the air, Mineta fails to explain how adding more flights to the overburdened air traffic control system is going to help anything.

No sweat. You can rely on Diebold voting machines!

Flaunting isn't going to help if there isn't anything to back it up. Cleveland is a fantastic city and has a ton of potential for improvement, but building Wal Marts and Home Depots damn near downtown isn't really the sign of a forward-thinking place. In fact, it screams "backwater". No PR campaign can overcome that.

Right on, Mikey! I've done the Boston-to-DC trip on Acela, and damn if it didn't take 7 hours, even on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. Another time, I was taking Acela from DC to New York Penn. The guy sitting next to me was from Paris, and was actually quite impressed. When I asked him why, he responded by telling me, "You know that the train is going to run. They're not going to go on strike." Good catch by Dukakis that France's SNCF is government-run. As is the Deutsche ICE that Miss Ingram seems to love so much. In fact, I think the UK is the only European nation that has privatized its rail system, to the lack of success noted by Dukakis. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I think the article is just more evidence that an Ivy League education can definitely be a waste of money. Did anyone notice the grammatical problem in the tag line at the end of the article? LOL

MayDay, I take buildings very seriously. As if you haven't noticed. Ever see an empty Wal Mart, gotribe? Those things don't get demo'd for free. Unfortunately, windowless one-story CMU buildings aren't very attractive prospects for rehabilitation. If demolishing buildings were always a piece of cake, there wouldn't be any empty buildings anywhere. But you know, if you guys are cool with having a disposable city, that's your prerogative.

^If only that was the way it worked in practice.

Archer, I know there are commuter rail systems where the cars are boardable at both high and low platforms. Which light/heavy rail systems have high/low boarding capability? I've never ridden any myself.

But cities enact the necessary rezoning and issue the building permits. The City of Cleveland dropped the ball on this one. And if you think that patrons of this center are only going to come from a handful of neighborhoods, you're sadly mistaken. SYC would go bankrupt in a heartbeat if that were true.

Aside from the suburban layout, there is one major aspect of this project that bothers me. It has been touted by the City as a way to bring affordable retail into Cleveland, so that those less well-off can shop without having to schlep into the suburbs. Why, then, is this center located in such a remote part of town? Is First Interstate going to fund a new RTA route to the center connecting to the neighborhoods on the far East and far West sides? Depending where you live, suburban locales might still be located closer to one's home. How is SYC an improvement, then?

You said it for me, KJP. We have a Home Depot in DC, but I much prefer to walk down to the neighborhood hardware store down the street. I don't notice much, if any, difference in price. In my opinion, though, doesn't inviting "category killer" stores into the city undermine any (potential) efforts to restore neighborhood retail? I strongly disagree that neighborhood retail is a thing of the past. Even in Northeast Ohio, there are many successful neighborhood-oriented retailers. Unfortunately, Cleveland seems intent to make sure those are all in the suburbs. Other cities do have "big box" retail and it does succeed and coexist with local retailers. In other cities, though, the big box stores front on sidewalks and are often accessible by public transportation. On-site parking, if there is any, is often in a parking garage or underground. SYC is a generic suburban spaceship plopped down onto an asphalt landing pad on the banks of the Cuyahoga. Whoop dee do. And if you think the park aspect of the whole deal is great, think of how much more park there could be if there were less parking lot. Surely, selling out to Wal Mart and Home Despot is not the only way to fund the park.

Well, that and RTA's rail fleet is only about 20-25 years old. Those cars are due for their mid-life overhaul, and will likely last another 20-25 years. I think "squeezing miles" is probably pushing it a bit.

So, MTS, you would contend that Steelyard Commons is a one-time mistake that *everyone* recognizes but is being built anyway just to fill up the land? I recognize that most posters on these boards are educated and enlightened. In Cleveland, though, minds like ours are in a small minority. I've never lived in Cleveland proper (grew up 10 miles from downtown), but between visiting my father at work downtown, my brother living in the city, and my own travels into town, I know the city halfway decently. Just because I live elsewhere, though, doesn't mean that I won't call a spade a spade. You questioned my assertion of a gimmick-based redevelopment policy, but then got pissy when I mentioned the convention center debacle as an example. I think it's just the old Clevelander mentality of not wanting to believe anything that contradicts or undermines whatever they already believe. I could be mistaken, though. I just don't understand how a lack of a clear vision and taking every crumb thrown its way is beneficial to Cleveland in the long-term. Is there a plan? It might behoove Mr. Jackson to make it known. Otherwise, I can only assume he'll pursue the status quo that his predecessors did. This isn't difficult stuff.

Not true, MTS. I'm an engineer who focuses largely on historic preservation. There simply isn't enough work in Cleveland, and I don't care to design big box shopping centers. I also don't want to have to chooose between owning a car and second-class citizenship if I live in the middle of the city. It's actually more convenient and more affordable to live where I do now. You can't reasonably expect ambitious people to want to wait 30 years for Cleveland to get its act together. You claim that without SYC, the site would remain vacant. What about the neighborhood storefronts that will remain vacant, and those that will become vacant as a result? Do those count too? Visibility isn't really the problem with Cleveland. It's the basics that are the problem. Quality housing stock, education, underretailing, transportation, and lack of jobs are fundamental issues that seem to go unaddressed from year to year. These are things that no convention center or tourist trap can fix.

Thanks for sharing that, MGD. I'm not sure I agree that a growing economy like Denver's is necessary in order to build smartly. In fact, big box development is actually more expensive than dense, urban development, because there is typically less rent per acre being paid by the occupants, and the parking is subsidized. If developers had their way, they would build rowhouses and apartments with street-level retail. Ya know, like they used to do. This Steelyard Commons thing just makes me so mad. The way to re-retail the city is to promote small neighborhood businesses where money will be reinvested in the community--not a singular colossal behemoth that is going to funnel people's hard-earned cash to Arkansas. From Higbee's on Public Square and May Company and Halle's on Euclid to Wal Mart in the Valley. This is progress???

Fair points, MayDay. Very simply, my philosophy is the old "squeaky wheel gets the grease" cliche. Wolstein wants to build a mixed-use neighborhood in the Flats? Good for him. The City should pull out the stops to see it to fruition. The things that need fixing are the ones that need attention the most. The things that ain't broke don't need fixing. Cleveland is a very frustrating place, because it never capitalizes on its own potential. If Cleveland were a Charlotte or a Phoenix that was never a "real" city, then I might not be so upset. Cleveland was once one of the most important, thriving, and wealthiest cities in the U.S., and the attitude that the City takes is "We'll take whatever we can get." The citizens of Cleveland have a responsibility to be outraged when this suburban Wal Mart bullshit is foisted on downtown. The citizens have a responsibility to demand that retail be located in neighborhoods, where it's actually accessible, instead of creating more auto-dependency. The citizens have a right to demand that local businesses have a chance to compete under the same (or better) conditions as the global businesses. It just seems that Cleveland only knows gimmicks. It doesn't know how to function as a city anymore, which is why I, and people like me, continue to leave in droves. As much as I would love to be able to move back to Cleveland, the future looks bleak. So yes, what I have done to help Cleveland is to leave. That way, I don't piss on anyone's parade when they want to build an urban theme park instead of a healthy, thriving, functioning city. I'd like to think that one day, I can come back to Cleveland and invest my money in recreating neighborhoods. I want to buy housing and storefronts, and rebuild the urban fabric that the powers-that-be seem so intent on destroying. I'm not in a position to do that now, so all I can do is bitch, and maybe point out some things that actually do work. After all, Cleveland is only going to be as good as it demands to be. Taking a Wal Mart on the chin doesn't really establish a reputation as demanding a high-quality urban environment. It sets a terrible precedent for the future, and something needs to be done to make sure a disaster like this doesn't happen again. I can't recall anytime I've explicitly put down the people of Cleveland, or anyone on this forum. This isn't personal, so if you take it that way, that's your own problem. I just want better for my hometown, apparently better than many of the current residents are willing to tolerate. It's time to stop with the time-honored Cleveland excuses and let people know how to turn Cleveland around permanently. And if that makes anyone upset or uncomfortable, it means you're thinking.

There is no such thing as a guarantee, but there is such a thing as minimizing risk. You don't just throw money at a problem and hope for the best. Cleveland has been doing that for the past 20 years, and the results speak for themselves. This is why real estate developers typically perform market studies before undertaking a project. A lot of people seem to be guessing that the building will be used more--where is the market for such a facility? A good start would be to examine existing convention center / dome setups in St. Louis and Atlanta. Has anyone done that yet??? What I want private investors to do is to pay for this thing themselves, if they want/need it so badly. If this silly roof is going to lead to increased profits and an improved economy as claimed, wouldn't that lead one to believe that public money is unnecessary for this? I'm not happy about much in Cleveland, because it's the same stupid short-sighted bullshit ideas day-in and day-out. All you have to do is look elsewhere once in a while to see what makes a city work. Cleveland would rather try the same failed ideas over and over again, though, and the result is the current "urban theme park" that resides on Lake Erie.

But even after the $90 million is spent on a roof, there's no guarantee that the building will be used any more frequently than it currently is. That is the point of contention here. It's a blind bet of a lot of money, and the odds of a payout are very low. Ask Detroiters how often Ford Field gets used. If private businessmen want to build this roof, fine. The public coffers have other needs to address at this time.

$3 for an all-day pass is a steal. We have commuters who pay $3.90 each way from the end of the line, which also doesn't include the parking fee. Of course, if you'd rather shell out for gas and parking, that's your prerogative.

MTS, you lost me. What point am I missing?

CornerCurve, I'm happy to be of assistance. I don't post solely to piss people off, but you hit the nail on the head. Blindly adopting the latest fad does nothing to provide economic stability. I mean, hell, Chicago has a ferris wheel on their lakefront. When does Cleveland get one of those? I jest, but I do fear anyone who isn't the least bit skeptical about things like this.

And who do you think has been here the past 5 years to witness those changes in DC? It seems to me, however, that Clevelanders get overly defensive when they encounter a perceived slight. Let's face it: the status quo isn't working for Cleveland, and has never worked for Cleveland. Why would it work in the future? Has anyone seen Garfield Mall since Garfield Heights built that crapbox on top of the landfill? Why should Cleveland expect anything different? To claim that you want to open a Wal Mart in the city so poor people can have a place to shop in-town is disingenuous if it's going to be damn near impossible to get there on the bus. Who does this really help? MTS, I think your claim that DC is doing well only because of the federal presence is disingenuous as well. You correctly noted that DC fell on incredibly hard times for a while. I might have missed something, but I think the federal government was still here during the 70s, 80s and 90s. Maybe the difference between a city that's rebounding (DC) and one that keeps falling behind (Cleveland) is the attitude. MTS seems to think that popularity and ingenuity are of significance. I tend to place more weight on education, jobs, and quality of life. Don't let a sourpuss like me discourage Clevelanders from pursuing their goal of being a "popular" city, though.... How building a Wal Mart does that, I'm not sure, but I bet someone reading this has an explanation.