DaninDC

No, in that mentality, suburbanites are people you *definitely* make fun of.

"Renaissance Promenade" then.

I would like to trademark "Revitalization Alley" before anyone else does.

Eh, that's just the Michigander in ya! :-)

Pope, you haven't ridden the Metro enough. We get our share of yahoos. They seem to inhabit the Green Line in significant numbers.

I don't think schools are as big a factor as people make them out to be. Only 25% of all households in the U.S. have school-age children. I have to think, in reasonable order, the most important considerations in choosing housing are: 1. price 2. safety 3. convenience 4. ease of commute 5. schools

You don't even need to go to Rome to see that. I meet plenty of people like that here in DC. Some of them are completely dumbfounded that people of all types live "in the city". I get the sense they somehow look down on city dwellers, until they find out a studio apartment is more expensive than their glorious vinyl-sided off-the-shelf design 4 bedroom McMansion.

With plenty left over to be 40th per capita in educational spending, right?

So how do we fix inner cities if federal and state policies are geared toward promoting new suburban development?

So your water pays for itself. What about the roads? Schools? Police and fire protection? Parks? If sprawl development paid for itself, Ohio would be flush with cash right now.

Many suburban school districts are just as lousy as the large urban ones, and you'll see more of this as urban decay continues to spread outward. It's interesting that in some parts, living in the suburbs is seen as a status thing. Where there is a vibrant inner city, living in the city is the status thing. I don't buy the "big house, big yard" thing, either. In my inner-city neighborhood, the houses are mostly 80-100 years old, but are larger than most anything in the new suburbs. The average townhouse in my 'hood is 2500-3000 square feet. Granted, the lots are small, but when you have a fantastic large park one block away, who needs a yard to take care of? If there was a manual that ever explained you have to buy a house in the suburbs with a big yard when you have kids, no one ever gave me my copy.

I always say, if it doesn't work for the people already there, how is it going to work for people who aren't there yet?

I think the emphasis on "drawing" suburbanites and tourists downtown is overrated. There is no way that transitional and occasional users of a space are going to be able to sustain the kind of activity necessary for a lively downtown. If cities want to rebuild their downtowns, or neighborhoods, for that matter, they need to focus on the stakeholders--the residents and workers in those communities. I will use the general term "neighborhood" because a downtown is really nothing more than a neighborhood with a high concentration of employment that traditionally resides at a transportation hub. To improve neighborhoods, more people (meaning residents and workers) need to be brought in--not just for a meal or a concert or a game, but on a permanent (tax-paying) basis, so as to establish some kind of stake in the neighborhood. To do this, urban neighborhoods must out-compete the suburbs. Since new investment in suburbs is largely a result of federal and state policies that subsidize them, cities cannot meet the suburbs on their own turf. The cities must take advantage of their natural inherent benefits, which is why they were established in the first place. The advantages that neighborhoods need to use to their advantage are: 1) location--a node on a convenient transportation network. 2) density of uses--related businesses find it easier to work together when in close proximity, for example, an architecture firm and an engineering firm 3) variance of uses--keeps things interesting and populated at all hours of the day 4) convenience--what I like about living in an urban neighborhood is that I can get anything I need within a 10 minute walk. Driving 20 minutes to Wal Mart doesn't provide an advantage to living in the city over the suburbs. I grew up in a suburb, and decided to move into a city at the first opportunity. After living in DC for about a year and a half, I lived in a Virginia suburb for 3 years before deciding to move back into town. My reasons were primarily convenience, a diversity of activity, and proximity to other younger people, although being able to enjoy those things without owning a car certainly helps. There isn't a silver bullet to improving neighborhoods or downtowns, and Cleveland of all places should have learned this 10 years ago. The fact that the idiots at City Hall are trotting out Convention Centers, Aquariums, and Casinos as the new Saviors of the City tells me they just aren't paying attention.

Well, considering that we built cities a certain way for thousands of years until inventing the artificial construct of sprawl after World War II, yes, I do pretend to know what people want. If you ask Americans where they would most like to live, the majority will say "a small town", NOT "prefab contrived subdivision". Let me break it down: Traditional mixed-use neighborhood: choice of housing type, people with different incomes in same neighborhood, ability to use variety of transportation modes Sprawl development: limited housing choice, segregated by income, travel primarily by automobile I don't like sprawl because my tax dollars go to paying for wasteful, redundant infrastructure (for those who can afford it) while neglecting existing resources in my own neighborhood. If sprawl is in such high demand, then why don't we let the "free market" do its job and create sprawl that pays for itself? If you want to sequester yourself away to a bunker, that's fine by me--just allow me the freedom to balk at the idea of subsidizing it.

Well, it seems like you're operating under the assumption that you know what everyone wants. Sprawl IS being forced on everyone--it's the law in the localities where it exists. Just TRY to build a corner store in a new subdivision--you'll need a zoning variance. Not only that, but sprawl is funded primarily by diverting resources away from inner cities to greenfieldsm, especially in places like Ohio with virtually zero population growth. The irony is, in the vast majority of America, it is highly illegal to build neighborhoods like Georgetown and Beacon Hill. Once upon a dream, new development paid for itself. Henry Huntington operated the Pacific Electric Railway at a loss, but still made a profit because the real estate he was able to develop as a result made it a profitable venture. Building new interstate highways always generates new development, but never increases revenue enough to pay for the cost of the infrastructure. If that were the case, Ohio and every other state would have an easier time keeping its roads in repair and meeting the transportation needs of the state. Secondly, you confuse sprawl with single family homes. These are two different things entirely. My neighborhood consists mostly of single family homes, but also apartment buildings, condos, basement apartments, and duplexes. You can, however, still walk to grocery stores, drug stores, restaurants, bars, parks, schools, transit, the library, and other amenities. Yes, people do want a wide variety of things, and if a community is planned properly, most of these things can be found within a 10 minute walk, vis-a-vis a 20 minute drive. I get the impression that so many people have never lived in a functional city, they immediately think of Manhattan or downtown Chicago when they hear the word "dense". It doesn't take anything near that level to create a cohesive, walkable community. A reversion of zoning regulations to their pre-WWII counterparts would be a very simple first step toward building places that are actually attractive and functional without exponentially increasing the amount of resources consumed.

I beg to differ, Mr. Sparkle. The problem with sprawl development is it does not even give the market a choice or opportunity to respond. It's more like a "take it or leave it" choice. It's interesting to note that in areas where densely-developed, walkable neighborhoods exist, these neighborhoods always command a tremendous premium over the new sprawl development. I'm curious to know what you define as "non-cohesive land uses". Granted, no one wants to live next door to an oil refinery or a craptastic Wal Mart Super Center, but what about a corner store? Neighborhood restaurants? Shopping? The way sprawl development is planned, it takes a trip in an automobile to buy a lousy loaf of bread. How is that an improvement? Your second claim is even more dubious. Neighborhoods built around streetcars still allowed for transportation by other modes, be it horse, walking, or even automobile. Even neighborhoods that pre-date streetcars, like my own, adapted to streetcars, and have since adapted to automobile traffic without discounting or eliminating other modes like subway, bus, bicycle, and foot. In sprawling suburbia, your choice is limited to "drive or go nowhere". In these new sprawling suburbs, it will be very expensive and difficult to ever retro-fit them to accommodate any other mode of travel than the automobile.

There are definitely objective characteristics of sprawl. The primary ones are: 1) rigorous separation and segregation of land uses 2) automobile-dependent transportation at the expense of all other modes

I don't buy it. We see plenty of TOD in the Washington area simply because we have a good, comprehensive rail transit system. Trust me--it's not just about the value of the real estate. It's far more expensive to build in downtown DC than just about anywhere in the Cleveland area, yet that's where some of the most rapid changes are occurring. What are the three "L"s of real estate? Maybe if RTA decided to sell off some excess property for development, like say the enormous Triskett parking lot. Why does RTA always act reactively instead of proactively? Joe Calabrese is a boob.

1. That figure should be for subway construction. At-grade light rail would cost far less. 2. It's a start. 3. See No. 1

7th Street / Gallery Place! The only regret I have about that area is all the new development has raised rents enough to virtually eliminate Chinatown. Pretty soon, it will be little more than a bunch of large chains with Chinese characters on their signs. The building on the left has offices, condos (studios from the low 300s), a 14-screen stadium-seating movie theater, bowling alley, restaurants, and retail including Benetton, Urban Outfitters, Ann Taylor Loft, a HUGE Bed Bath & Beyond, and City Sports, among others--all on one city block. Just behind it with the vertical signage is MCI Center.

Spend the $90 million to build something on the Municipal Parking Lot.

Is Dennis Kucinich involved in this? What's the big deal? For two years, I lived 5 houses from an elevated railroad line. There were at least 50 trains a day, including commuter trains, Amtrak, and freight trains (This was CSX's mainline into DC). For most of those, you're either at work or asleep. The neighbors didn't seem to mind, either, as housing values managed to triple in six years. Let me tell ya, though--those VRE engineers sure love to blow their horns at 6 AM. You can't see it, but I'm playing the tiniest little violin in the world for the people of Loveland.

Wow. What tripe reported by Channel 5. If Corna thinks that Ford Field sees use every day, he's only off by about 345 days a year. Never mind the area immediately surrounding Ford Field is a complete dead zone on non-game days. 'cause you know, if there ever was a city to emulate, it's Detroit </sarcasm>. If Polensek thinks that the failure to capitalize on the lakefront has anything to do with the lack of a dome on the stadium, he should get kicked out of office for being such a blind boob. Poor planning and pedestrian access have hurt the lakefront--not the lack of a dome (visit Chicago, Mikey!). Now, perhaps these guys can start addressing issues that are more important to the lifeblood of the city than this colossal waste of money?

A dome on Browns Stadium for $200 million? You could build another bus line for that much!

Nah, there's no one even IN the Galleria anymore.