DaninDC

I understand. This is a very frustrating topic for me. Building a city isn't supposed to be hard--it's what came naturally for thousands of years. You build a variety of housing types, within walking distance of retail, offices, and transit stops. That's it. Anything else is overkill, and probably going to have unintended consequences as a result. For example, does anyone NOT think Wal Mart poses a challenge to local stores like Dave's Supermarkets, which already exist in underserved and poor neighborhoods? What advantage does this "power center" give Cleveland over the municipalities that have sucked Cleveland dry? Doesn't it just make Cleveland into another automobile-dominated suburb? Until Cleveland stops looking for the magic bullet and focuses exclusively on building honest-to-God neighborhoods, its efforts are doomed to utter failure. There are good examples of cities out there--Cleveland just likes to emulate the bad ones.

How are you going to rebuild a city if all you do is build suburbia? My posts aren't negative so much as Cleveland and Clevelanders have forgotten what it means to be a city. If you want shrill, I suggest listening to the cheerleaders everytime a new Project is announced. Among things that were supposed to "save" Cleveland: Tower City Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Gateway Browns Stadium Steelyard Commons Euclid Corridor Project Convention Center Instead of encouraging investment in neighborhoods and local businesses, the city is encouraging people to get in their cars and drive to this remote location to shop. Any guess on how poor people without cars are going to get there? You've been sold out, and you're too proud to admit it.

Oh goody. Now let's just put a roof on Browns Stadium, host a Super Bowl, and Cleveland will be right up there with Chicago and New York. Yawn....

Chicago also has a viable, bona-fide functional downtown. Cleveland does not.

On the other hand, urbanlife, you're not going to get people migrating to Cleveland from successful regions if they see a metropolis that operates in such a backward fashion. Building a big box Wal Mart one mile from downtown doesn't exactly scream "innovative", "unique", or "neighborhood-friendly". No city can adopt a suburban spatial arrangement and hope to compete. With all the federal and state subsidies stacked against cities, it just isn't possible. Cities have to maximize revenue, and using your land for parking and roadways isn't going to get the job done.

^It's the "we'll take whatever crumbs we can get" attitude that continues to ruin Cleveland. You won't get better if you don't demand it.

Is Steelyard Commons going to look as good as that P.O.S. that Garfield Heights built on the landfill? How fun will it be to drive across the Valley View Bridge and see nothing but Wal Marts across the Cuyahoga Valley. Cleveland must really be hitting the big-time now (sarcasm)! I don't get it. No one has moved to Northeast Ohio in 30 years, so it doesn't make sense to build ANYTHING new, least of all insipid crap architecture.

Fantastic. If this is at the top of Polensek's agenda, then that means all the other problems must have been solved. Congratulations, Cleveland!

My brain is tripping over itself trying to figure out how to respond to this. All I'm going to say now is that I DO live in a neighborhood with a stadium (among other unique "attractions"). It's not why I live there. I'd like to think that my city caters to its residents before it caters to out-of-towners like Mr. Freethink. If you want an "attraction" geared for tourists, you can always go to Disney World, right? If, however, Freethink would like to explain how a dome on Browns Stadium will allow Cleveland to compete with cities that are actually creating jobs and wealth, I'd be very happy to entertain him.

I agree wholeheartedly, MTS. Crocker Park, I think, is a good attempt at urbanity. Admittedly, it's a bit out of context because it is surrounded by suburbia, but here's to hoping the urban form starts swallowing that up over time. All I know is that when I come back to Ohio, I often feel lost, since everything is so spread out. Crocker Park, whether you believe it or not, is one area that actually has the urban feel to which I'm accustomed. There is plenty of work to do, though, in reinvesting in existing, older neighborhoods, but if the suburbs want to alter their form to something more urban, I'm not going to fault them for that. Now Legacy on the other hand...don't get me started.

I'm a stickler for terminology. Legacy Village and Crocker Park are not TOD, as there is no transit component. While Legacy is a complete sham, I think Stark did a good job with Crocker Park. It reminds me of *gasp* an authentic neighborhood. Granted, it's still in it's infancy, but with its mix of retail, residential, and office, as well as the architectural scale and styling, I think will help it age well over time. Understand that I live in an old, very walkable neighborhood, and I was quite impressed with Crocker Park. With that said, I think the prospects for a transit-oriented "town center" at Van Aken are tremendous. Even as a kid, I always wondered why those shopping centers were set so far back from the Rapid station. I guess the only caveat would be for Shaker Heights not to go all Cleveland on the thing and mandate parking requirements appropriate for the Saturday before Christmas.

It has nothing to do with paying bills. People move to the middle of nowhere "for the kids". Do they really? What if these people asked their kids, "How would you like to live somewhere where: -you need a ride from mom or dad to go play with your friends? -you can't ride a bike anywhere? -you can't walk to school? -you'll be a second-class citizen until you get a driver's license? -you're recreational activities will either be heavily organized, or will involve a computer or television? -you won't ever interact with anyone who isn't any different from you? -you won't ever see mom or dad, because they're in the car for 3-4 hours a day going to and from work? Yet people wonder why their teenage kids are into drugs and booze. I call BS. These ridiculous commutes have nothing to do with kids, and everything to do with adults ingratiating their egos with big houses on the cheap.

No kidding. Welcome to the 21st Century!

I wonder how many of these people ask the kids what they want before moving to the sticks.

That doctor from Chicago is insane. There's no reason he can't take the train. Yeah, having the Dad gone for over half of each day is a terrific way to raise the kids. :-P

Kassouf's project is reminiscent of the high-rise housing projects on the South Side of Chicago. I guess if Cleveland wants to go for the chic East Berlin look, it ain't so bad of an idea.

In that context, what you're saying makes sense. If Ohio ponied up money like other states, though, you wouldn't have to catch a train in the middle of the night.

I think Northern Virginia is one of the most inhumane places on earth, X. Suburban Maryland--let's not even go there. There are two major differences: 1. the population in the DC area is growing. Cleveland's population has been static for 30+ years with no signs of that changing 2. the inner core of the DC area is focusing growth around rail transit stations. typically, the closer-in you are, the higher the land value (which is quite the inverse of Cleveland, isn't it?) Because of these two factors, new development inside the Beltway isn't cannibalizing existing development, as is the rule in Greater Cleveland. Every new thing that gets built in Greater Cleveland is exclusively at the expense of something else.

clvlndr, Michigan has more Amtrak service because, quite simply, the state pays for it. noozer, I'm not sure I understand how being "in the middle" of a rail line implies a lesser degree of service than at the terminals. By your reasoning, New York has lesser train service than DC or Boston.

Chicken Little? Hardly. Take a look around--GREATER Cleveland is falling off the map faster than you can say "naivete". Anyone with a step back from the carnage can see why. The frivolous worship of new plastic subdivisions (in the cornfields and the city), the parasitic, neighborhood-killing big boxes, and the multi-million dollar publicly funded Project Plans in a region with zero population growth (and very little income growth) are all completely absurd. All these things accomplish is displace investments and spread them over a larger geographic area, leaving carcasses of perfectly fine buildings in their wake. What's going to be done with Garfield Mall once it dies? It's not the developer's fault--it's the fault of narrow-minded Garfield Heights for approving this disaster. If idiots didn't approve plastic crap construction like this, developers would be forced into rehabbing existing neighborhoods to make a living. Instead, people keep demanding junk, and the developer is more than happy to oblige. I assume you're an adult, MayDay, which also means you know how to refrain from personal attacks.

What's going to happen to the existing Garfield Mall, huh? Yay for progress! No wonder Cleveland isn't going anywhere. Someone please put a bullet in my head.

I think that before any additional money is raised, there should be a state constitutional amendment that prohibits spending money on new highway construction until all current maintenance needs are met. That might keep the General Assembly from getting too road happy, and perhaps coax them to think about rail.

I think the stigma is the one factor that takes care of itself, once you start getting more "choice" riders due to TOD, congestion, lack of cheap parking, etc. What RTA might be interested in, is that even in cities with good rail transit, bus riders still tend to carry a stigma. Often times when I ride the bus, especially on weekends, I am definitely in the minority as an educated white male.

Where transit is available and operated well, the people find an amazing ability to adapt to that transit lifestyle. I know quite a few 20-and-30-somethings who don't own cars, simply because they're not needed. There are others who would love nothing more than to dispose of their vehicles. Our geography is based almost entirely on the Metro map in lieu of addresses, as in, "I live by Capitol South." Entire social schedules, like bar hopping nights, are planned along subway lines (or bus routes). Advertisements for bars, restaurants, theaters, salons, etc, almost always advertise the closest Metro station. Most places beyond the reach of the Metro aren't even worth going anyway, so why bother? I'll admit it's very liberating. I just don't understand why people back home in Cleveland don't get it. After all, y'all seem to have no problem riding the subway when you come visit. Why the disparity?

Oh my goodness! How will Cincinnatians ever survive the extra 20 bucks it will cost to get to Gatlinburg and back?