3231

Don't worry, KJP. No one here would ever think that you somehow know of developments before they appear in the press. ;)

Necromantical, We fully understand your personal preferences and no one is suggesting that you live in a townhouse. But we don't understand your desire to reference your preference in an attempt to explain away a surge in demand for dense urban living. Your article is about a suburban cluster development. I don't see how that sector of the market reflects the current trend in urban townhouse development. This is an odd thread. Did a townhouse do you wrong at some point in your life?

That's fantastic news!

now get readin'!

Cleveland landmark now off the menu Tuesday, February 07, 2006 Sam Fulwood III Plain Dealer Columnist Like many people who live or work downtown, I ate many meals at Ruthie & Moe's Diner. That silver spot at East 40th Street and Prospect Avenue is a landmark. Oops! Make that was a landmark. A recent blurb in my colleague Mike McIntyre's Tipoff column noted that developer Ken Lurie wants to buy the property and erect a headquarters building for his expanding real estate firm. Sigh. ... http://www.plaindealer.com/

Councilwoman's heart misguided Thursday, February 16, 2006 Sam Fulwood III Plain Dealer Columnist Councilwoman Fannie Lewis is confused. Sort of. She has based her opposition to development of the old Ward Bakery site on the stubborn - and wrong-headed - belief that a county-run facility could be built there to house some of the people dumped on the city streets after serving time in prison. "I have been actively seeking to identify a project for that land that would aid people coming back to Cleveland from a period of incarceration," Lewis wrote in a letter published Wednesday in the Plain Dealer. "While everyone loudly proclaims we have a crisis brewing because of the 5,000 individuals that return to Cleveland every year, no one wants to do anything about it." ... http://www.plaindealer.com/

Bakery site a test of political vision Tuesday, February 14, 2006 Sam Fulwood III Plain Dealer Columnist Years ago, Ward Bakery made tasty treats that sweetly perfumed the air along Chester Avenue. But the five-story building is no more, shuttered in 1979 and torn down more than a decade later to prevent vagabonds from nesting inside. Now it's an abandoned lot with rubble and rocks littering the landscape. If you think that's a metaphor for Cleveland, wait till you hear how this bitter civic dispute threatens the future of Midtown. A group of developers had plans to turn the land into a sports complex for nearby Myers University. ... To reach this Plain Dealer columnist: [email protected], 216-999-5250 http://www.plaindealer.com/

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This beholder thinks that its quite ugly. The renderings make the skin look like a 70s skyscraper. The form is awkward and random. It will definitely be a signature building.

I don't mind that they only show the next three scheduled trains. RTA's trains are very punctual. Did anyone talk about pursuing more TOD? I heard the first few seconds of the show, but I had to go to work. $100 for a mile? Is he talking about subways, ripping out neighborhoods to put in additional rail? That number seems awfully high. The WFL only cost $40 million or so.

January ridership up 4.6 percent CLEVELAND – Ridership on trains and buses was up 4.6 percent in January, say officials of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA). The figure compares January 2006 with January 2005, and represents an increase of 207,000 rides. It marks the highest January ridership in five years. Ridership on buses grew 4.9 percent, or 191,000 rides – the highest January for bus since 1998. Total Rapid Transit ridership was up 2.7 percent, or 16,800 rides. And, thanks to the warm weather, more than 1,200 bikers used RTA buses and trains for part of their trip.

They are pre-WWII with some unfortunate vinyl renovations.

Necromantical, I am not sure what your point is. Are you discussing how cities were built 100 years ago or are you talking about your modern day housing preferences? There is a big difference between the two.

Here are my thoughts: In concept, I have absolutely no problem with the project. A retractable dome will greatly enhance the the return on the city's investment if it is built in conjunction with an expanded convention center. The problem with the current stadium and a renovated/new convention center is that they are public investments that don't create enough return on the dollar. A new cc in Cleveland will probably improve business, but not to an extent that justifies the investment. We need something unique, something that can be catalytic. A new cc will only serve to make us look more like other midwest cities. We need to stand out. This project must bring something different to Cleveland. We all rue the decision to build the stadium at its current site. We also don't like that its only used 10 times per year. A retractable dome would allow Cleveland to watch the Browns in the environment that we associate with Browns football and also allow Cleveland to attract many big ticket sporting events. Also, with the future closing of the IX Center, Cleveland needs a place to hold the large conventions and shows that currently are islanded off in Brookpark. A retractable dome/cc will create that opportunity. Furthermore, there would be a fantastic opportunity to bridge the railroad tracks and shoreway. Conceptually, its a great idea. But, we don't have a good grasp on the true construction costs. Could the city afford to pay for the infrastructure maintenance? Would the NFL, NCAA, etc promise to hold big-ticket events in Cleveland? Do we have enough hotel rooms in downtown for those events? Would newly constructed hotels be able to survive even with the increase in business? Can we market ourselves well enough to attract new business? What is the financial worse case scenario? We need to dream big and then crunch the numbers to see if the dream makes sense. Dismissing a new idea without further thought hurts Cleveland as much as building the big project without doing a prior reality check.

That would be great. Is there a map of the proposed route?

I thought that they were asking for $90 million. Where did you get the $200 million figure?

Baltimore's population is very similar to Cleveland's. Under your logic, Cleveland has "gazzilions of people" as well.

^I have not really looked too much at the floorplans. What is the main difference between the two?

You are confusing past development patterns with modern day realities. Additionally, I would argue that there is a definite need for such housing. The market demands it. There are many townhouse developments that are going on in Cleveland. Most new construction in Cleveland is in the townhouse style. They have fetched upwards of $700,000 in Little Italy. If developers didn't do their research and determine that consumers wanted this type of product, then they would not build in this fashion. Furthermore, it makes economic and environmental sense to build this way.

Necro, There is no need to take offense. It appeared that you had misinterpreted the question posed by the thread. A 'nice-sized backyard' is often associated with suburban style development. That is not always true, but the tone of your post suggested so. Furthermore, I would not consider Los Angeles nor Atlanta to be traditional urban places (Thank god!). You can have suburban-style construction in an innercity neighborhood.

great to see this one finally moving along!

Go to I-90 from MLK and you'll have some more time to catch some sleep.

I would suggest taking St. Clair to MLK, and then on to I-90 (or south to Chester). If that route makes sense for your commute, you'd have a safer drive home.

necro, The point of the thread is to determine the reason why Cleveland did not build rowhouses in the late 1800s/early 1900s. An expression of the average suburbanite's preferences doesn't provide such an explanation.

Did they steal all your punctuation?

Then why are they selling so well in this day and age?