clvlndr

^Do you have details on how Cincy's rail plan would encourage sprawl? What was the specific study that showed it would have no effect on traffic congestion?

... diarrhea of the hands.

I sure hope you're right...Rail transit is such a tricky thing; usually the most expensive public works project in its respective city. I hope new pols point in the right direction. Some cities are rah-rah cheerleaders of rail and keep expanding. Whether old systems (Chicago, Boston, NYC) or newer ones (D.C., Denver, Dallas), rail in certain cities are viewed positively and view their (the city's) future tied to the success of rail. You'll note that even in old places like Chicago and Boston, most of these places make some major improvement or expansion of rail each decade it's been in existence. From 1976 to 2003, Washington, D.C. completed its expensive heavy rail Metro of 103 total miles. Since then they've: a) opened a new station at NY Ave on the Red Line, b) extended the Blue line 3.5 miles east to Largo Towne Center, and c) is about to begin construction on a 10-12 mile Gray Line extension to Dulles Int Airport. That is, D.C.'s built a most difficult system, and wants more!!!! ... and in Chicago, the L is broke and falling apart yet CTA is still extending it (1-mile to the Pink Line, opened last year) and planning for more... Cleveland transit, sadly, seems defined and limited by one horrible moment: Albert Porter's strong-arming the County Commissioners to vote against the taxpayer-approved bond levy to build a subway loop downtown connecting to the then-spanking new CTS rapid (now the Red Line). I wasn't alive then but have read newspaper accounts from the period, and the effect was devastating. This town was giddy with its new Rapid and was poised to build a D.C./Boston level system. But Porter changed everything... He was not only negative on rail (proclaiming the "Iron Horse is Dead") he made similar prognostications about the death of downtown Cleveland; championing the infant suburban malls and strip shopping centers along w/ freeways. And the destruction of downtown, which it is still trying to recover from, and the legacy of freeway strangulation and sprawl are all Porter's progeny. Porter's subway killing spawned a future of other rail killings: the 1.5 mode mixer from Green Road to I-271; the dual hub subway up Euclid; and most recently, the stupid NIMBY opposition/killing of Berea residents to the Red Line extension to Bagley Rd -- I used to think Berea was a rare liberal-minded, enlightened West Side burb, but... Even the Kucinich restriction/opposition stopping (til now) Lorain commuter rail which KJP and his people are valiantly fighting... And then, there's Joe Calabrese, who is as much a metaphorical descendant of Porter as anyone currently. When the 2.2 mile Waterfront Line opened in 1996 it was the 1st rail extension of any kind in Cleveland in 28 years! ... and people, including on this board, still bash it, routinely. And its no accident, in this town, that no further viable rail expansion plans are on the board currently, even though there's plenty that could be built that could either enhance or even help save this city economically, like along the eastern lakeshore. But everybody's afraid to talk about it... Bottom line: some cities celebrate and revel in new rail transit. In places like Cleveland, however, rail is always controversial... Again, let's hope you're right and things are changing... it certainly be a historical paradigm shift of immense proportions.

The new orange line DOES travel much farther out than the el does, which is a big advantage, but without it traveling under Dudley Square it is unable to transfer with buses conveniently. I thought the old Orange Line el, like the new relocated Orange Line, terminated at Forest Hills in far south Boston where suburbanites could transfer to MBTA diesel commuter trains (under Acela's wires) for trips as far as Providence, RI.

Yeah, Baby! Donyell shows he's a man -- worst game of his career, Wed; steps up and is huge/key in closing out Nets, Friday. Dan Gibson is unlike any 2nd round rookie I've seen in a long time... Kid has no fear, and this is the biggest stage for LeBron and everybody else, yet Boobie delivers the dagger... GO CAVS!!!!!!!!!!

My bad, MayDay, point well taken...

^Tower East is the brutalist Van Aken tower, it just came to me.

I agree/disagree, on a level with your comments, on the descending level you have them -- agree totally with 1. Disagree with 3. I don't think the tower is either a 'signature' building, by Bruer or any similarly celbrated architect, but it is not ugly imho. In fact, I consider it a rather handsome Brutalist style building of the type that clearly marked the 60s and 70s (Reserve Sq, Rhodes Tower, and the tower at the end of Van Aken -- name escapes me -- are all examples of 60s-70s Brutalism)... But you stretch your argument waaay to far saying it's a mediocre building -- it certainly is not. Moreover, why harp on its signature location. First off, the focus for that location is, and will always be, the gorgeous Italian Renaissance Cleveland Trust dome sitting directly at the corner. The Tower rises up behind the dome and, as such, in no way overpowers the corner. Secondly, while focusing your critical eye -- and comments -- on the tower, why not do a 180 and check out the building that sits behind you. No way you're going to tell me Breuer's Cleveland Trust is uglier than that sugar cube set on end. What's more, contrary to your specious argument about the Cleve Trust tower, National City does dominate the intersection; there is no handsome 1908-built dome addressing the corner as does the classic Cleveland Trust rotunda. The only thing that makes National City palatable to me (aside from the fact it currently houses Cleveland's largest corporation and its downtown) is the giant mobile in front, which is interesting, and the fact the landscape architect was wise enough to try and soften this monstrosity with a multilevel plaza with shrubbery. So, no, I think it's a red herring to state Cleve Trust's tower is mediocre or dominating. It sounds like your stretching for reasons to make the Tower's demolition justifiable although you're not (currently) coming right out and advocating its destruction. If you view your Chicago photos -- or those of any great skyscraper city -- you'll find several towers many would consider ugly (I've never warmed to the Sears Tower, btw -- Cleveland Trust is better looking, to me); besides the fact, I don't think Cleveland Trust's tower is ugly to begin with. It gives downtown a variety and, no doubt, aside from the prestige of the architect, which frankly I can care less about, I do like the building because it is a signature structure defining skyscrapers in a particular time and place. And once again, I cannot fathom how at all -- with public money or private (the fact it's public $$ makes it all the more unfathomable) is how one, in Cleveland where we need more 28+ floor skyscrapers and not less, could advocate the Tower's destruction in favor of a squat, space-eating replacement... ... I just don't get it.

^Good observations. Warrensville-Chagrin-Van Aken... ... There's a like -- I think KJP shared it some time ago -- showing the plan for the end of the Blue Line. Even though some of the areas there, like the new Fresh Market and Blue Line Cafe seem ped friendly, they still sit behind asphalt-sea parking lots and are single use buildings surrounded by, as you note, high-speed trafficked roadways making movement from store-to-residence, store-to-train, store-to-store access arduous. The plan is to narrow main streets intersections. Chagrin will be traffic-calmed, much the way planners did in the Shaker Towne Center area. Chagrin was narrowed, sidewalks widened and, even, angle parking in bays were built. I think this is the master plan for Van Aken/Warrensville, including a lot of Tudor style townhouses and condos, many of which are planned to sit over retail (thence the mixed-use aspect) and sit directly on the sidewalk and not backed away from the sidewalk behind surface parking -- the classic auto-oriented, strip-mall urban sprawl model all too common both here and elsewhere (esp in the freeway-dominated Sun Belt). Lee Road Rapid stop: actually, one version I recall switches the Rapid stop to the east side of Lee Road with a retail building over a newly enclosed station similar to what you suggest. It's an elaborate plan and I'm not sure they'll pull it off, but it's been thought of, so you're definitely on point.

The handsome Avalon Station condo project is moving toward an early summer opening. Shaker Town Center looks like its shaping up, with more street and facade improvements, particularly on the south side of Chagrin Blvd... In the late 1980s, Shaker obviously made a huge blunder it is now forced to live with when it tore down buildings along Chagrin's sidewalk and moved the building line for new, modern-ish single-use structures to the rear of an asphalt jungle. Add to the fact that, to add insult to injury, they moved a little needed new fire station to the site long the South side of Chagrin (what was so bad about rebuilding on the previous Lee Road site across from City Hall?), in essence, throwing away one more slot for sidewalk-oriented retail... It was a ridiculous bow to the auto particularly in a suburb that probably has the best rail transit service to the central city core in the entire Midwest (that, of course, includes all of Chicago's burbs). On top of that, Shaker's neighbor to the north, Cleveland Heights, is a model and has the best, old-style mixed-use walking districts like Coventry, Cedar-Fairmount and Cedar-Lee... One classic in the vicinity that needs to be preserved and enhanced/expanded is the 1920s Tudor-style Kingsbury building right at the Lee-Van Aken corner across from the Rapid. Its a classic suburban mixed-use structure that addresses the rail transit station and which has always been an attractive gateway to what was the Chagrin-Lee-Avalon retail district, however imperfect it was. Shaker Town Center is yet one more example of how we Clevelanders so frequently have unlearned the things that have made the city great. (what's next: tear down Shaker Sq. to build a strip mall?). But at least, in creating a new faux main street along with a midrise condo that sits flush on Van Aken's sidewalk steps away from 2 rail stations, it's apparent that Shaker planners have seen the (TOD/mixed use) error of their ways, and are tying their level best to correct it. The district has a livelier, more ped-orientation to it, already, even though neither Avalon Station nor the Chagrin facade rehab is done... The excellent/classy Heinens supermarket, though set back from the street, along with the hodgepodge of retail, is actually bringing some foot-traffic to the area, albeit pedestrians who must dodge cars and navigate the asphalt jungle... While I doubt this area will ever be a Coventry, Shaker's steadily making the best of a bad error made in the 1980s with the needed, more urban/ped-TOD friendly changes to this area that's still brimming with potential.

I'm sorry, but I think all of you who think the AmTrust tower is ugly and needs to be torn down are seriously out to lunch... Peter Lawson Jones is my hero on this one. We really need to back him against the knucklehead commissioners who are so intent on the wrecking ball. Like the 1950s subway they voted down 2-1, it seems once again our Commissioners are solidly on the wrong side of Cleveland progress... so what else is new?

btw, speaking of restaurants and the East Bank, anyone hear any more about the Watermark's proposal to reopen? I've been by there several times and it appears no different than it has since it shuddered-- the good news, I suppose, is all the chairs, tables and fixtures are still in place, as if the place simply closed for the day; nothing has been moved. You'd have thought it would have long since been cleared out. Maybe the plan, all along, was to reoppen when conditions were right... we can only hope... Anyone have any news as to what, if any, is going on with the Watermark? To get it reopened and up and running again, would be a huge boost to the Flats.

Agreed MTS. And no one would think even the East Bank were dying -- right this moment -- if they strolled along the grassy park/hill around Settlers Landing, where the river vista opens to beautiful, modern high-density residential buildings, like River Bend (condos), Crittendon (apts; a high rise, in fact), and the huge warehouse conversions: Bridgeview, Nat'l Terminal and, of course, the excellent/humongous Bingham. Then, just across the river is the PD Pavilion nextdoor to the Powerhouse, whose decks should be buzzing w/ diners/drinkers... and, of course, there's the amazing Stonebridge (city) rising up all over. On any warm spring or summer afternoon/eve, Settlers Landing Park is buzzing with joggers, dog walkers and other passersby... Hardly dead... Yes, the northeast corner of the Flats has died and, to use your term, is making itself over. And when Wolstein's done, I'm sure the East Bank will have Chicago-like beauty and activity; Baltimore's Inner Harbor isn't a bad goal, either. I've long said, I miss the old Flats and truly believe we didn't have to let it, in its prior form, decay... But I'm very excited about the future, with its promise of even more residents and more substantial/permenant retail, restaurant and other buisnesses..

Very nice; it's a gorgeous building.

^Wow, I sure wish our Ohio cities could learn a thing or 2 from Denver and Dallas in their organization and aggressiveness toward rail. How come they can do it and we can't?

^that's what people are saying. The fact we know Stark bought 1350 W. 3rd and plans to move his HQ's there gave me hope. But Mr. Stark seems to like to keep people in the dark.

^try Larry Hughes. Hard for me to flog LeBron (for if it were not for him, we'd have been at home not making the playoffs at all)... At least LeBron, though cold, contributed something to the team. Larry just turned the ball over in addition to standing there jacking up (and clanking) jumpers. ... and now, back to Pesht.

... the Washington D.C. METRO (rail).

I guess I can say: yes, a form of BRT anyway. In the mid-90s, I rode on Seattle's Metro Bus tunnel which trolley-buses (or trackless trolleys, whatever you favor) utilized the 4-5 station subway where Seattle's Metro Transit is going to run it's new LRT, along with the buses, that's building... The Metrobus tunnel seemed to work pretty well and carried lots of passengers thru the core of Seattle's CBD. Problem is, officials hastily and incorrectly inlaid rail for a future (now current) LRT, and messed it up so that the tunnel had to be closed and retrofitted for with the current LRT tracks for the impending system to share the tunnels with the trolleybuses. I've seen Pittsburgh's Skybus system, but never ridden it, out of the South Hills sharing the Washington Mountain tunnel with PAT's LRT. Most consider Skybus and expensive failure and chide Pittsburgh for not focusing on expanding the existing light rail system, which it is, belatedly, now doing (Cleveland, obviuosly, isn't the only American city to make bonehead transit choices like this one-- at least Pittsburgh is savvy and honest enough to attempt to correct itself whereas, here in Cleveland, leadership barricades itself behind a false wall of perfection). In particular, it appears the Martin Luther King busway into a corner of Oakland and the near-East burbs, will be someday, maybe soon, converted to LRT, esp since stub of the PAT LRT subway ends where the MLK busway begins near Penn Station. Right now, that stub, much like Cleveland's Waterfront Line, shuttles few people but (also like the WFL) has great potential for future expansion. Boston just opened one replacing the old ("St. Elsewhere") Orange Line El over Washington Street, which was relocated miles away from the corridor into the newly electrified Amtrak/Acela ROW -- a move which many Bostonian's along sorely regret. But they did so with REAL trolley buses -- something Cleveland could have done until Joe Calabrese squelched it for his (supposedly light) diesel fuel burning ones... You see, as with Seattle, Boston is able to run the trolley buses through subway tunnels, something Cleveland will not be able to do with it's diesels. So therefore -- quite conveniently -- there'll be no possibility for a trolleybus subway in Cleveland given the 'preferred' (here at least) diesel technology... ... you JoeC didn't know what's he was doing? Not!

^blame Stark for this... with all the buzz, hype and anticipation he's created, folks are getting understandably punchy waiting for him to come out from behind his self-created shroud of mystery ... This project's obviously too important... Let's hope it's not fool's gold.

You're right, there's no sense crying over spilt BRT. It's just that, the comments about sewer rebuilding possibly allowing for subway conversion down the road, caught my eye... There's been discussion, elsewhere, about how easy it could be to converted ECP to light rail someday and, then, dropping the line below surface downtown. It's an intriguing thought, but shouldn't have morphed into further BRT bashing and dual hub mourning. I've made myself pretty clear on how regretful I am about that... Time to move on.

We win the tip and Larry turned it over and the Nets get the 1st bucket. That presaged the game -- fittingly, Larry turned it over to end our last possession. He was a HUGE disappointment. I wish Brown had let Gibson play the point -- remember, Boobie ONLY lost the starting PG job because he injured his big toe. Even as a rookie, he's better than Larry cause Larry's stopped driving and plays mostly out of control, it seems. He's scored allot, until tonight, but is erratic. Plus, even in the last 2 games we won he had 1 assist in Game 3 and zero in Game 4... and tonight...?

Actually, I believe Beacon Place and those mac-mansions along Chester were developed/built in the late 1990s before BRT and after the failure of dual-hub. BRT is already encouraging some development, like the proposed hotel at the transit terminal at E. 18th (I think). That's good. I'm all for it. But I just can't believe BRT would encourage the kind of high-density development a subway would have a-la Midtown Atlanta, or D.C. (pick your neighborhood or close-in burb).

^Actually, MARTA's 1st line was a short link to the East in 1979. The core leg up Peachtree was built sometime in the mid-80s... I'm not saying BRT will have no benefits, but why was Atlanta, which had no rail prior to 1979, able to build a core subway and in Cleveland, which has had rapid transit since the 1920s, unable to do so? But like most new transit cities Dallas, Denver, among them -- Atlanta's leaders settled on a transit plan and, then, went out to get funding, mainly federal, to fund it. Here in Cleveland, we can't even discern a cognizable transit plan because of all the bickering and posturing -- hence dual-hub is relegated to Cleveland's un-built Hall of Shame like the failed subway of the 1950s. I say it's because we've unlearned the things that made this City great and have downsized our expectations considerably because we've had so many disappointments. I get your point, but no matter how you slice it or dice it, BRT up your main corridor when you're an experienced rapid transit city is a setback and embarrassment.

I agree with Jane -- I've never heard of such an ordinance requiring a vote for the City's delegation of ED powers to an agency like the PA. I think the opposition is really reaching. Hopefully this is a precursor to they're getting their legal asses kicked.