clvlndr

In most cases, I'd agree with you. However, you have to consider the immediate surroundings. By dint of Daniel Burnham's Mall Group plan which the City began implementing 100 years ago, the neighborhood is government/institutional (aka institution/non-retail which = dead at night). The source of the hotel's being is the attached Convention Center, and we know most of it is underground. But the hotel will also serve as an island of retail and activity in itself. It has no E. 4th, or Tower City or Playhouse Square to attach to. And as we know, the hotel is separated from the WHD by the fortress-like Justice Center. The architect and developer has no easy task in creating this unique and important building and space... so far, I'm pleased with what I'm seeing. The good news is that the hotel will bring a node of activity to the dead (by night) Civic Center quadrant and hopefully bridge the rest of downtown to the Lakefront … once the pedestrian plaza is built over the Shoreway and RR/Rapid tracks. I also like the aggressive/statement architecture. It will be an asset to the skyline as well.

Quite impressive imho.

I've been a critic in the past, but I'll give props to the Wolsteins for fronting the cash to get the apts started even while financing negotiations continued. It may have been a pivotal move.

^^Thanks for the update. E. 118 is coming along nicely. Nice to see they're keeping that group of handsome old Tudor-style rowhouses near Euclid, although I wish, perhaps, the new townhomes had been pushed back from the curb a tad because they tend to dominate and overshadow their historic neighbors. Still, I'm thrilled to see so much development on this street. With it's highly diverse styles and histories, this short stretch will become one of the more eclectic residential block (actually couple blocks) in Cleveland.

Nice homework JG! ... I'm shocked a place like Reserve Sq. is so relatively cheap. Even though it's 42 years old, it has been rehabbed and I still consider it a luxury building with a ton of on-site amenities and a great location. Crittenden is also a steal with a top rate of $780 -- I don't know about their amenities other than their highly-visible fitness center, but I do know Crittenden sits in a core "hot" area 1/2 block from both the river (and 1 block from spanking new/expanding FEB) and the WHD... At E. 55 & the Shoreway, I probably wouldn't included Quay 55 as a "downtown" property though.

^Yep, it's just like the bland post-modern suburban office-park look that Cleveland schools adopted when they tore-down/rebuilt the schools they decided to keep open. As beautiful as Shaw and many of the older buildings from the early 20th century looked, they just didn't have the adaptability for computerized equipment required for contemporary learning nor could the narrow passages, old stairs and other tight spaces be retrofitted for ADA disability access. For a time, there was a movement to hang onto the old buildings for other uses, like apartments or condos, but that didn't seem to work out too well, so Cleveland found it was more economical to undertake its demolition/ground-up rebuild program. ... A few old buildings did survive, however, like University Circle's handsome John Hay building which is now a charter high school or that old school building on Murray Hill in Little Italy which was, I believe, converted into an arts & crafts school and center.

Yeah, RTA really missed the boat on that one. All other transit systems, either with their new cars or on older-car rehabs like ours, have added scrolling LED signs. And in Cleveland it is especially needed given that RTA's robotic GPS-computer voice station calls don't work half the time, which leaves passengers at the mercy of drivers who either don't make station announcements, mumble when they do or have their sound systems so screwed up you can't decipher them even when they speak clearly.

^^Awesome stuff; thanks for that.

The Plan is certainly a step forward. But like Ontario, I still would block Superior all together (please, no "Airplane" jokes...). I just don't see how allowing smelly, noisy diesel buses through there is going to promote the people-friendly park everyone wants. Buses can be routed through Prospect and/or Huron Rd as opposed to the Square... Of course, if we were REALLY serious about balancing transit and walkability with street traffic, we would convert the Health Line to LRT, drop it into the Huron Subway on the East and exiting out the Detroit-Superior subway deck to the West with Tower City as the main underground station-stop (utilizing the unused old Shaker Rapid station that still exists)... The current inbound/outbound buses could terminate at the Stephanie Tubbs Jones bus terminal on the East and the WHD on the West... which would not be unlike the plans for the subway in the 1950s.... Good ideas can still remain good regardless if they aren't acted on over the course of decades. This is what Boston did in the 1890s with its streetcars and Boston Commons and the Public Gardens have been beautiful, green people-friendly/ped-oriented public spaces ever since… We could do the same for Public Square… if we were REALLY serious, that is…

I understand why you want to move the WFL; that part of your plan I could agree with (but I would work on that zig-zaggy route you propose and have fewer stops – obviously it would have to mesh with however the development north of the stadium shakes out). But as KJP notes, it just may not be feasible cost-wise at this time. I’m also aware of the barrier effect. That’s why there’s the proposal for the pedestrian bridge over the Shoreway and RR tracks… It could be an opportunity for the WFL to better connect with the lakefront development, both current and in the future. I think, though, rather than moving the WFL tracks, I’d get rid of the Shoreway first. The move to downgrade the West Side portion into a slower-moving, street-level boulevard is a step in the right direction. If that happens, that long ugly light blue viaduct over the river, Flats and the WHD would disappear along with that short open cut at E. 9th Street. Then the East Side Shoreway would be downgraded to a boulevard from the Innerbelt (Dead Man’s) curve to E. 9th Street. That’s what I would do. The other barrier of course is the Stadium itself. If I had my druthers, it would never have been put back there after the Browns moved in 1995. Strongsville, the industrial Flats, even Randall Mall would have been preferable… Unfortunately, it’s not going to be moved (or even domed) anytime soon, so what the hell.

^^Biker, also consider the fact that (hopefully) that big ugly hole in the WHD at Public Square won't be there forever -- maybe the Public Sq. redesign will light a fire under our public officials/developers. Whatever goes in there -- like maybe major apt/retail/hotel perhaps will be a big transit draw. Also you've got to consider that currently E. 9th-Euclid is now an almost totally dead corner, but will leap to life next year with 2 hotels, several apartment (office adaptive reuse complexes), offices, retail and a prime supermarket, no less. This = instant potential congestion... Fact is no city with true rapid transit with a grade-separated entry into downtown "converts" this system into street trolley's. It's bass-ackwards and never done... and I don't want Cleveland to be the first in such a negative way.

^He's young and didn't even have a season, really. The Nets' game was the most PT he's had all season and it just happened to be game 82 of 82... Give him time. People said Dion couldn't hit the broad side of a barn when he came in the League, and now he's developed a sweet outside shot and is one of the more deadlier 2s in the league scoring-wise. Felix did square up for a nice easy trey Wednesday night. I wouldn't pigeonhole him into 1 position or another at this early date in his career.

^You mean the Standard Building and, I agree, I'd like to see some kind of mural on that ugly blank wall behind the OSC... Maybe a temporary/rotating type mural; something akin to what they did on the back of the Landmark Office towers above the Rapid tracks at Ontario-Huron.

^Felix is a swing 2/3, but at 6'6", 201 lbs, I'd rather run him at 2 rather than against bigger, stronger SF's like LeBron, Melo or even Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. A guy Gee's or Deng's size more of what I think of for traditional 3. But at Felix's size, quickness and with his athletic ability, I think he could pose a lot of problems for opposing 2s... We'll see. I'm excited to see him after a year under his belt and (hopefully) healthy next season. For Felix and many Cavs, 2013-14 a lost season.

Even though it was junk-time against a Nets' backup team that didn't really care about winning last night, I liked what I saw of Felix. He's super athletic, quick and can even shoot a little bit. And he showed flashes of that lockdown D everyone talks about. If CJ is gone, which I suspect, Felix could easily become our no. 2, 2...

^btw I erred above. Atlanta IS the lone example you give above of a streetcar that has no current or planned tunnel or grade separation aspect. However, this is why your earlier plan of separate streetcars is better -- mixing rapid transit and streetcars is not effective imho. They're vehicles are of different sizes (trams are/should be smaller than Rapid trains) and designed for different types of travel: the Rapid for the outer city and generally close-in suburbs while trams should be for downtown and downtown-edge residents and riders. The 2 don't mix which is why places like Atlanta, D.C., and Seattle (to name a few) have developed them separately.

My problem with your analysis is that it doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of downtown nor does it account for its rapidly evolving nature. Downtown Cleveland may not be congested on a Sunday afternoon with no sporting events in town, but it becomes very congested on weekend nights, esp when there's a game (sometimes multiple games), concerts around Gateway and, of course, the continuing popularity and growing crowds in/around the casino on Public Sq. It’s an absolute joy to sit at an outdoor café table on a warm summer Friday/Sat night in/around E. 4th after an even average Indians crowd, and watch cars and buses inch up Prospect as if it were a mass parking lot (knowing my car is either home or at a Rapid Stop) And as we know, this is on top of a number of major residential/hotel/retail projects that are currently being built: FEB (which is only 1/3 finished), the multiple developments around E. 9th and the largest hotel in all NEO (not to mention the return/upgrade with Westin coming online on St. Clair). And if we’re successful in redesigning Public Square cutting off through traffic on both Ontario and Superior (which I hope happens) through the very core of the City, auto and bus congestion will likely double (or more) than what it is now… Point being: Downtown is one of the fastest growing Cleveland neighborhoods, if not THE fastest. So to assume it's static traffic-wise is a big mistake.

Yeah, too bad about the tech ribbon. You'd think being adjacent to one of the nation's top engineering universities, it would make too much sense. On the whole I guess it's positive that there appears to be some movement.

OK, OK Biker, to a degree ... ya got me... But consider the fact that I'm in agreement with some, actually, extensive use of street level trams -- but with private ROW such as revisiting Dual Hub (but dropping into the Huron subway – the TC connection already built, as KJP notes). Each of the LRV branches you note are all subsidiary routes… Even with the Pittsburgh example you cite you’ll note that PAT rebuilt a parallel line (Overbrook) with extensive grade separation and is exclusively in private ROW – like the Blue/Green lines – at street level, trains CROSS the streets, they don’t run in them. But in all of the examples you cite, the trains drop into subways as the approach the CBD. Also note, while I recognize the great historical significance of Boston’s 1st subway in America (1897), it’s now a mess -- the Green Line(s) is/are way out of date – too many routes converging on a single pair of CBD subway tracks through Boston’s most populous residential corridor – horrible delays and slow moving trains… Long range, MBTA planners have proposed either replacing the Green Line(s) entirely or, at least, running a parallel, faster route, like extending the Blue Line through the current tunnel and having the current Green Lines terminate at a connecting transfer station. Again, though, I maintain my point: you just don’t spend the cash to rebuild and slow down a system like the WFL (for all its flaws which I recognize) unless it’s seriously cost effective (like converting the HL to LRT already is!). Again, also, let’s see how well (or not well) WFL runs once FEB and the new stadium development is fully built out.

^Yeah, the 2014 weather has been a deal-breaker in terms of ridership numbers. But I think they'll bump back up cause it'll be a banner summer downtown, esp with the Gay Games arriving in August.

Your statements totally miss/ignore my point: why are you putting the cart before the horse? Why would you spend gazillions to relocate the WFL anywhere when the city has either failed or has been very slow to embrace TOD that would boost WFL ridership? Why are you relocating the WFL to north of the stadium for development that’s been proposed, but hasn’t even been built yet? Of course it may make more sense to have built the WFL north of the stadium. Better would have been not to have rebuilt the stadium at all at W. 3rd. I’ll throw the question back to you: why are you obsessed in downsizing and throwing away a Rapid transit system already built in exchange for slow moving, traffic-clogging trams just because they’re cute? Did New York do that? Did Philadelphia do that? Did Boston? Atlanta? St. Louis? …. Didn’t Pittsburgh just bury their trams in subway tunnels 30 years ago? Yeah I know, biker. History doesn’t matter. What other cities do doesn’t matter either. You’re in your own separate world…

Another one of those dreaded half system-wide rail closures due to highway construction. RTA seems to have more of these than any other transit agency I'm aware of. Other cities seem to do the work at night where there's less service disruption. Not good ol' RTA... ... in a case of payback, of sorts, RTA literature had noted that Mayfield Road would be closed on a weekend day(s) toward the end of March to remove the unused rail bridge so that work on the new Little Italy-UC station could commence. As far as I know that hasn't happened. Any word?

Hunter Morrison, former Cleveland Planning Director, one of the most respected in the nation, once asked, "What's the matter with Cleveland?" He was responding to the question why after a decade (at the time) there had been no TOD along the Waterfront Line. Finally, with FEB, it is happening and (sorry Biker) people will be riding the trains more so you won't need to engage in your favorite fantasy: how to tear up Cleveland's Rapid system and replace it with your beloved slow moving, street clogging trolleys. The fact the WFL is "in a trench" has nothing to do with its poor patronage. If “the Trench” was so awful and people adverse, how come thousands ride WFL trains for big events in the Flats and along the Lake like, say, Browns Games, July 4th fireworks, the Tall Ships festival, etc… The WFL was designed, since the 80s, to traverse what (we thought anyway) was some of Cleveland's hottest RE right along the river and lakefront. The Waterfront line would have much better ridership: IF we hadn't been so foolish to block Lake front development with an ugly, open air, single-use steel/concrete bowl that is used less than 15 times per year. All that Gies office and other high density RE planned to the side and north of the dreaded bowl would be right up on "the trench" and available/usable by thousands daily. As it stands, a lot of people will ride the WFL to/from the burbs and other parts of Cleveland to reach the development once its built as is... no need to tear up the Rapid and convert it into slow moving, ineffective Trams to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. IF we had built the mid-rise, high-density Davenport Bluffs apartment/condo/retail development that would have sat directly over and adjacent to the WFL terminal at the Muny Lot (South Harbor) --- even if after that plan failed, we would have developed some similar plan for the area – if Zaremba had built his failed/failing Avenue District just a few blocks north on this land, both it and the WFL would have been successful. IF we had really developed a logical plan for TOD development of the Flats rather than the fly-by-night national chains and cheap bars in the rundown warehouses that quickly packed up and left at the first sign of trouble leaving a ghost town along the rails… again, until now with FEB which is finally coming into fruition… and even with it, there’s still no plan or movement toward adaptive reuse of Old River Rd south of FEB into apartments and shops that could extend development… IF we had mustered our collective balls to, once and for all: Close Burke, remove the people-unfriendly Shoreway with its elevated viaduct and concrete cut, relocate the Port Authority and the Naval base to free up land for land for more high density, retail/residential development so that we would have like, you know, a NORMAL waterfront, lakefront…. … As I (and others like the respected Morrison) have said umpteen times, Biker, the fault is not with the WFL… It was built with the intent of capitalizing on an up trending part of the city … it’s waterfront… Maybe Biker if you, and others (Calabrese, the Sky Tram folks and others), focused more on building the type of development suitable for a high capacity infrastructure asset like Rapid Transit that already exists – you know, like NORMAL cities do -- rather than trying to develop some new cockamamie, fancy-shmancy (usually rubber tired in Calabrese’s case) transit mode, we’d be better off…. … but alas, the logical approach is usually/often lost on Clevelanders. Chasing our tail is the oft favored modus operandi.

^^I like!... but what becomes of the church facade? Is it merely hidden or completely altered?

No, it wasn't a bad looking building at all and would be perfectly acceptable for that corner ... IF it hadn't been a facade covering the gorgeous architecture of the Schofield Building. Thankfully in this so-called Post Modernist age we came to our senses and rescued the older building from within as we've reversed the 50s/60s mentality that old = bad and new = good, ... at least regarding architecture.