Jump to content

clvlndr

Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by clvlndr

  1. This appeared in RTA's latest press release: After the regular meeting, the Board’s “Committee of the Whole” will meet with officials of the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad to discuss a feasibility study to extend the railroad from Rockside Road to downtown Cleveland. I'm glad this issue is on the table, but obviously its far from a done deal. That there going to discuss a "feasibility" study is ominous. We all know about how Cleveland is apt to study and study and study good plans to death. And we know this current RTA administration is none to excited to move on any rail project... So how best can we get this thing moved along? Ideas?
  2. EcoCity Cleve's website has an Amtrak regional proposal to build a station across the street from Hopkins. Does that make sense. Wouldn't it be smarter to build a joint station just up the tracks with the Red Line? There's a new TOD and parking garage going up their next year. Why shouldn't Amtrak be a part of that -- passengers could simply transfer to the Rapid for a 2 min ride to directly inside the air terminal. It doesn't make sense, to me, to duplicate efforts with the proposed Amtrak station, especially given the fact that Amtrak passengers will need some form of ground transport (probably a shuttle van/bus) to reach the airport anyway... Are officials giving this any thought?
  3. ... btw, similar to your SoCal example, when I used to commute from Baltimore to DC via MARC, Amtrak honored weekly/monthly MARC passes during times, specifically, when MARC was not running (late evenings, all weekend) with the commuter a "step up" on Amtrak during those periods (a buck or 2, as I recall). Of course, given the long distance nature of Amtrak, only a few of the many MARC stations were served by Amtrak... I think the same system is used on the VRE in N. Virginia out of D.C. ... bottom line is, given the frequency and quality of AMTRAK service being proposed for our area (which is not unlike what already exists in the D.C. area, particularly in the NEC), it's hard to see how commuter rail wouldn't be a key part of the Cleveland equation. We'd have to be reeeallly anti rail to fumble that ball... ... that said, given our region's sorry, conservative approach to rail expansion evidenced in the past (most recently exhibited by the Kucinich "agreement" and Bath/Portage county opposition to the Cleve-Akron-Canton commuter rail proposal), I wouldn't put anything (negative) past our region -- and, for the rest of Ohio, for that matter (just ask our Cincinnati neighbors yearning for light rail about that one).
  4. Thank you very much, gentlemen, appreciate the answers.
  5. clvlndr replied to KJP's post in a topic in Mass Transit
    Thanks for the update, KJP. Living in Sun Press territory, I didn't see this article... Quite frankly, even though it is a pretty, creative building, I wouldn't mind if the proposed CMHA tower deep-6-ing the W. 25-Ohio City station and having it rebuilt from scratch. It was the 1st of the outer (from Tower City) Red Line stations to be built, and since that time, RTA has seemingly learned from it's W. 25 mistakes and rebuilt much better (w/ things like escalators, where warranted, climate controlled structures, better lighting/visibility/safety (illusion if not reality), better material, etc. Plus, if the station was directly tied into the station (as opposed to putting it next door squeezing this rather small site, it could have exciting TOD spin-off possibilities... Either way, I won't kick so long as the tower gets built. Ohio City could use an even greater boost in population density near the Market Square locus.
  6. KJP questions: 1) does the Midwest Amtrak plan, per se, mean we will get some sort of commuter rail in Greater Cleveland along Amtrak's upgraded tracks? 2) If so, what entity would run it? (as RTA ends at the county line). 3) Has commuter rail been discussed as a factor, perhaps, getting locals interested in the Amtrak plan? and 4) wouldn't the idea of a bi-level super North Coast terminal/station (perhaps w/ TOD) be advanced by the presence of commuter rail (along w/ Amtrak and the Rapid),... and if this approach isn't being used, shouldn't it?
  7. At 11-12 floors, the Higbee's Building is way too big for a modern downtown department store. Every big city that has managed to hang on to it's retail grand dame has downsized in those big old buildings where the retail-floor space is only a floor or 2 with the upper floors rented out to offices. Even though the Halle Building has no anchor store, I think they did a good job keeping that building viable -- it's a heck of a lot better than empty Higbee's and May's... I think Higbee's would be an excellent spot for Quicken and would only be a block from "The Q" and directly on top of our Rapid hub. If I'm not mistaken, Higbee's upper floors have roughly 600 to 700,000 sq. ft of convertible office space outside of the existing main retail floor and the basement (where the Men's store used to be) -- the whole Tower City complex holds nearly 3M sq ft of such space. And if Gilbert's weekend "visit" for the Quicken 5,000 is a preview to him ramping up a major office move over the 350, I'd be all for them moving into Higbee's... You couldn't get more of a win-win situation. Good News! I don't like the higbee building for anything but a department store. There are plenty of other buildings downtown, with Class A office Space, that can meet the needs of this company. I guess we'll have to wait and see if these are "new" positions or positions "relocating" from D-twat!
  8. At 11-12 floors, the Higbee's Building is way too big for a modern downtown department store. Every big city that has managed to hang on to it's retail grand dame has downsized in those big old buildings where the retail-floor space is only a floor or 2 with the upper floors rented out to offices. Even though the Halle Building has no anchor store, I think they did a good job keeping that building viable -- it's a heck of a lot better than empty Higbee's and May's... I think Higbee's would be an excellent spot for Quicken and would only be a block from "The Q" and directly on top of our Rapid hub. If I'm not mistaken, Higbee's upper floors have roughly 600 to 700,000 sq. ft of convertible office space outside of the existing main retail floor and the basement (where the Men's store used to be) -- the whole Tower City complex holds nearly 3M sq ft of such space. And if Gilbert's weekend "visit" for the Quicken 5,000 is a preview to him ramping up a major office move over the 350, I'd be all for them moving into Higbee's... You couldn't get more of a win-win situation. Good News! I don't like the higbee building for anything but a department store. There are plenty of other buildings downtown, with Class A office Space, that can meet the needs of this company. I guess we'll have to wait and see if these are "new" positions or positions "relocating" from D-twat!
  9. clvlndr replied to KJP's post in a topic in Mass Transit
    KJP, don't you mean immediately EAST of the platform? How viable do you sense this proposal is or will the "rich vs. poor" squabbling deep-6 this promising project?
  10. ... one more thing, to show the unpredictability of the Ratners was the report last winter that, in trying to lure the county, FCM promised to tear out the TC Cinema and replace it with more parking. I shuddered when I heard that. Good old Cleveland: sacrifice a people/ped/transit friendly attraction like the Cinema for more space for autos! Those theatres help make downtown a neighborhood and have become to the highly-successful Cleveland Film Festival in the spring. ... It's just one more reason to fear that these folks will pull the cc rug from under the City midway into preparation, if they don't exactly have their way.... ... and I think we can all agree, the Miller/Ratners aren't doing all they could to beef up TC. That PD Mag article on Columbus last weekend noted that, when Columbus lost it's mall anchor Lazarus, they replaced it with a science center. It's appalling that FCM is letting our beautiful Higbees just sit there crumbling right in the center of town... It's a crime.
  11. I agree to a point, wimwar, I'd like as much lakefront freed up for housing as possible and, though I'm a life-long Browns lover who celebrated when we brought them back, I think putting that huge concrete, lake-blocking mausoleum dead in the middle of prime, high-density housing RE was a huuuuuge mistake. That said, b/c the stadium's already in place (meaning, the cc is a complimentary use), because Wolstein is (let's hope) going forward w/ dense housing on his corner of the E. Bank, and finally, because the FORUM proposal appears close enough to link the existing center and keep beautiful, historic Public Hall viable, this proposal is not all bad... ... But TC, I think, has more advantages w/, like you said, the Rapid, hotels and Gateway. What's unique about the TC area is that it's at the hub of our street grid and transit network, yet backs up against the no-man's land drop-off to the Flats -- facts which, to me, make this site ideal. Cities tend to stick convention centers at the edges of downtown; those kind of backdoor areas where they can develop and make tax-producing land out of slums while beautifying the area simultaneously. And the Scranton Rd/Flats area is a prime, decaying district that could use such rejuvenation. Look at what Gateway did for that formerly unsightly, slummy corner of downtown at our backdoor. And, yes, KJP by all means could help in the effort to secure a Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad terminal within this complex. I just don't trust the intemperate Ratner/Millers. I smell a rat. As you've alluded, they must be ordering reelection-hungry Jane to jump with her responding: "How high?"
  12. clvlndr replied to a post in a topic in Sports Talk
    Yuck!!!! That thing is hideous. That name "The Q" is pretty cool, though.
  13. I too like Tower City as a rail terminal, but not at that expense, ... and I just don't mean dollars & cents. Your proposal would seriously hamper the Red Line in rerouting it miles out of the way and turning it into a partial street trolley and that's not something I'm willing to even faintly consider... ... on the other hand, I've warmed to the idea of the lakefront station because of all the potential TOD/convention center/hotel, etc., at that site.
  14. Go for it, KJP, you'd be great. Got a name for your column: "Talking Transit."
  15. I agree that 'holding vacant land for future possibilities' angle is poison here in Cleveland -- you know our town, that land could be vacant-yet-waiting 30 years from now. And yes MGD, I agree w/ your sentiment. UCI/U. Circle, have probably the worst track record in historic preservation in the entire region. While I'm obviously happy to have our world-renowned research hospitals there, UCI's allowed them (esp hemmed-in U. Hosp) to run roughshod over its historic residential neighborhood, building garage after garage while tearing down some beautiful houses and old walk-ups. Damn shame.
  16. Agree totally. People who view W. 25 station from street level and don't use it think it's so cute w/ it's bright red (btw, when it was built, did you kinda think RTA would use a red theme in all it’s future station rehabs along the Red Line? … get it?) WSM knock-of clock tower, but it is in really terrible shape. Paint peeling everywhere, frequent broken out glass in the track canopy, cracked/broken floor tiles and weeds galore growing up inside the canopy. And its usually dirty, too. And that steep, way-too-narrow stairwell (where an escalator should be -- traffic here warrants it) drives me crazy -- you practically have to single-file when you're going against the grain of commuters. You'd think that w/ such a great neighborhood show piece that Ohio City is/is becoming, RTA would give this station a bit more TLC. It's an embarrassment, however, esp being only just over a decade old.
  17. MGD, I only meant the canopies on the bus transfer platform -- I know they'll keep them over the Rapid's platform. In looking at the artist rendering, again, I suppose I can see them along the retain wall of the rapid track's. These don't, appear, directly connected to the station head house, however, unless they are clear Plexiglas and I simply can't see it. I'm all about passenger comfort over looks. Even though the old CTS structures are worn out and dated, architecturally, they sometimes were superior in terms of a comfort/convenience stand point. Case-in-point: W. 25, where, before, the station served both sides of busy Lorain Ave before RTA relocated the whole structure across Lorain causing the bulk of the commuters (those, from my limited vantage point as merely a frequent visitor), who mainly go to such high trip generators as the WSM and St. Ignatius HS and Market Sq, generally, to schlep across busy, dangerous Lorain Ave. Sure, the old station had a dark tunnel ramp under Lorain to the current location, but modern standards, not to mention a new Lorain bridge over the tracks that has eliminated the blind-spot causing pillars of the old bridge, could accommodate a ramp and stairs/escalators, to the more important north side of Lorain... ... just my take.
  18. The building looks cool -- a tad on the conservative side, maybe, but a marketed improvement over what's there now. I'm just wondering why the removal of the canopies? Don't people realize we have, er, somewhat inclement weather here in Cleveland and that, though they may not be beautiful, they serve a key function? Why the 'beauty over function' kick? RTA similarly removed bus canopies in the Windermere rebuild. Fortunately, though, they expanded them down the tracks at Superior.
  19. clvlndr replied to KJP's post in a topic in Mass Transit
    As promised, here's the link to "Windermere Renaissance" TOD development in East Cleveland. http://www.windermererenaissance.org/index.htm
  20. I saw this yesterday. I hope this project succeeds. The potential for greater high-density housing is very important for a flourishing area like Ohio City which, believe it or not, still has a ways to go before become that bustling, true 24-hour neighborhood we seek. I, like you, hope that since development behind Riverview Towers was squelched b/c of the unstable hillside, building can be in tighter to the WS Market/Market Sq location. The previous Hope VI development appeared a tad sprawling and more weighted toward the Detroit end where, of course, there's far less commercial activity and is cut off by Lutheran Hosp. I hope people are not a little lackluster b/c of the public housing aspect, cause the far greater percentage of housing are market rate units. I've really got my fingers crossed than this project can go forward and that all the neighborhood factional yelpers can cool it and work together.
  21. clvlndr replied to KJP's post in a topic in Mass Transit
    KJP, I did a quick search on the Windermere redevelopment, and came up empty. East Clevelnad's website may have something, and I'll check. I stumbled on a link few months ago by accident. When I come across it, I'll post. In the mean time, here's a nice piece in the 3/05 Properties Mag re the Chicle gum factory rehab that KJP's post alluded to (if you haven't already seen it): http://www.propertiesmag.com/current/2005-03/Chicle.htm
  22. clvlndr replied to a post in a topic in Ohio Politics
    Oops, this probably should be moved to the Ohio "politics" discussion. My bad.
  23. clvlndr replied to a post in a topic in Ohio Politics
    Just curious as the ex-Boy Mayor (aka Dennis the Menace)-turned-US-Presidential-candidate-turned-national-lefty-media-darling just tied the knot w/ a Brit lady half his age -- whether through the wisdom of age, he'd be a good mayor in light of the upcoming election where bungling Jane Campbell appears all but a lock to win reelection? :drunk: Your thoughts?
  24. clvlndr replied to KJP's post in a topic in Mass Transit
    You're right about W. 65 -- it's a beautiful little station, but that awful used car lot really hurts growth potential. I'm fine w/ the Matt Zone rec center across Lorain, as this enhances opportunities for the community, particularly youths. It's a shame RTA isn't putting adequate staff/resources toward TOD, which is so important for both RTA and Cleveland, generally. I guess the think they can post a sign and/or a web address, and private developers ‘ll come a runnin’ – not that easy, especially in a community/region that generally adverse to transit, anyway – I mean, what mainstream developer (excluding farsighted, urban/environmental types like EcoCity Cleveland) will seriously invest in TOD if the reigning mentality is that: “only poor people use transit in Cleveland”? ... Oh, also, I'd read a website about some rather extensive TOD planning in East Cleveland around Stokes-Windermere, including seniors rehabbed apt housing, some of which, apparently, is underway. Is this a part of the "under discussion" planning you mention? Good info, KJP, thanks much.
  25. clvlndr replied to KJP's post in a topic in Mass Transit
    KJP, thanks for the TOD update... Do you know of the timetable for Euclid-120? Is there ever going to be anything definitive done w/ a new and (hopefully) relocated station at this high potential TOD-generating location or just more of the same noncommittal weasel talk with weasel words (not directed at you, of course) like "maybe" and "possibly" and "potentially"? It seems like serious positive high-density, mixed-use development in this area, not in Little Italy, is forever stuck in the Twilight Zone of indecision and bickering. Why did NOACA hold up the TLCI grant? Was it because they were waiting to see what would happen with the oil storage area cleanup, meaning, they could subsequently approve it? Also, what happened to the modest-to-grand proposals surrounding the W.65th stop? There was initially talk of a post office, small food retail store, all the way up to high-rise commercial and residential development on a new plaza covering the Rapid tracks. Hopefully it’s just in remission and not dead.