clvlndr

Point well taken... If it's not, then it's even more absurd... If Van Aken developers are going to separate the buildings from the Rapid with surface parking, at the very least make the parking for the Rapid... Bottom line is, it's a joke to call this project TOD... To me this fits a very obvious and disturbing, even sinister, pattern in Greater Cleveland when it comes to transit and development ... With this project, the Health Line and the whole Opportunity Corridor mess, it seems that planners and developers who are either anti-rail transit or, at the very least indifferent to it, use TOD as a dog-whistle catch phrase to get gullible local officials and media types to buy in to their developments because the term TOD is sexy and trendy... But as we are seeing, the projects that are materializing are anything but TOD... Van Aken seems to be just another mini- Crocker Park or Legacy Village... The difference here is there just happens to be a rail line nearby.

^with the reconfiguration of the intersection removing Northfield and Van Aken, accessing that planned lot does not seem very viable, although the Phase 2 plan has a building on top of the current Farnsleigh surface lot. I agree with KJP, there's plenty of RTA parking along Van Aken. Drivers should also consider sticking their cars in the future garages, although RTA's car-to-train commuters would probably balk as Cleveland rail commuters are spoiled. Many US transit systems have pay lots along their rail lines while ours have always been free.

^I love what Fairmount is developing at FEB downtown, but re Pinecrest!? ... I just don't see how Suburban Cleveland, esp this area of the Eastern Suburbs, can keep creating and absorbing these massive shopping centers within such close proximity of each other -- Legacy, Beachwood Pl, Eton, Golden Gate, University and Southgate (and all the stores in between) are all within about a 10-15 minute drive of one another, and the population of the Eastern Burbs keeps declining. I don't get it. Meanwhile, when (and if) nuCLEus gets off the ground, we're still not seeing major retailers in downtown despite the rapid residential growth down there ... something's gotta give.

I see there's a parking garage located just past the RTA terminal, so in typical Cleveland fashion, Shaker and RTA will foreclose Blue Line rail expansion forever.

That's kind of a silly statement. I'm glad Dick Pace doesn't feel the same way about lakefront apartments, and that Little Italy disagrees when it comes to a Rapid station on Mayfield Rd., and that the Cleveland Hostel people were willing to take a chance in Ohio City. :wink: I'm not advocating for a Park-N-Ride, by the way. I'm just saying I could see that as a rationale, especially given that there's parking at almost every other Blue Line station in Shaker. It's not silly it's fact: there was never an Rapid parking lot at the end of the Blue Line, either under RTA or it's predecessor the Shaker Heights RT, so why should Shaker Heights or RTA want one there now?

I don't think boats have been allowed to dock on the east side of the river for 20 years. Coast guard rules due to many "incidents" with freighters.... That would be logical... I just note the yacht in the rendering near the Alley Cat restaurant. Also of note is that, even the old FEB, didn't have a substantial boardwalk like the one being built ... or in any way comparable to the one on FWB. There will, of course, be docking stations for the new Water Taxi at a designated location on FEB near the base of the MAB.

I believe you are correct. Frankly, I disagree with bringing the Cod back over to that site. Make it more accessible (ie remove the fence), but keep it where it is. Having the Wm G. Mather there is enough, and even it -- given it's huge size-- may prove awkward where it is and new residents and commercial tenants may want it towed away as well. This is a prime residential, office and retail location with (hopefully) sleek, modern buildings and pristine Lake Erie vistas. We don't want to clutter it up with old ships and a sub despite their obviously kid-friendly/tourist-friendly orientation.

One key player in the development team is a longtime rail advocate. I'd be surprised if he was involved in the decision for putting a parking lot in phase 1 next to the rail station. I've been meaning to ask him about that. That kind of bothered me, too. I guess it's a little justifiable because that station is the terminus of the Blue Line, so there's a bit of Park-N-Ride potential. But it would be more justifiable if there weren't so much parking elsewhere in the development... Actually, not really-- I don't know why there should be a desire for something that's never been available... As far as I know, there has never been Park-N-Ride at the Warrensville/Van Aken terminal of the Blue Line, not even back in the Shaker Rapid days. Van Aken Shopping center had signs forbidding and threatening towing ... at least they used to. Part of the reason is the unusual configuration with the Farnsleigh station being only a few hundred feet (1,000 feet at the most) from the end of the line, where there is both a large surface lot across the street from the station and a smaller angle, pull-in lot adjacent to the tracks. I just don't get this design at all... For all the big TOD ballyhoo about this project over the past decade, what we're being presented, at least in Phase 1, is the same old cookie-cutter suburban type stuff that this development is replacing: a grouping a bland, squat office/retail buildings in a suburban campus on a wide plaza whose back is turned toward the transit station (keep in mind, many of the current, soon-to-be-bulldozed Van Aken Shopping Ctr buildings, are mixed also office-over-retail mixed use buildings, so this new plan is nothing new)... And just like the 50s era plaza, these new buildings will be a distance away from the Rapid station, separated by the same ol' bland-suburban sea of asphalt parking. All I can say is: Here we go again! ... 25 years ago, Shaker blew it that absurd single-use, one-level strip mall along Chagrin at Lee road that replaced mixed use, sidewalk buildings from the 1940s. Despite it's status as being THE rapid transit city in the State -- the town where the Rapid was both born and which still the most intimately Ohio town served by the Rapid, Shaker is still showing it doesn't have a clue about TOD, which is both ironic and sad.

Yes, I did check out Steve Litt's article (didn't have time to read it earlier), and it noted Phase II. I'm still underwhelmed by Phase I, though.

^The location of the new restaurant, just east of Voinovich Park, is perfect, allowing the well-planned (and much appreciated) V. Park to remain intact.

I kind of wish the new FEB boardwalk didn't have the fence and was open like the Shooters-FWB boardwalk, which allows boats to dock and boaters to climb right onto the boardwalk and into restaurants, etc., while vice versa, allowing restaurant waiters/waitresses to serve boaters on-board. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears the FEB boardwalk fence would prevent this.

^I'd love to see a classy restaurant go in Watermark's old spot. I really loved the Watermark -- great atmospherics; pretty good food.

Great news!

I think you're right, which means the footprint has shrunk from the initial plans which called for the development include Shaker Plaza and extend all the way south to Chagrin.

My initial reaction is disappointment. First, I thought the grouping would be much more compact than this. There's a lot of open space here which I thought was being corrected from car-oriented present configuration. While I prefer the greater greenery that this plan has, open space around short building blocks seems to roughly replicate what is already there... Secondly, I thought residential units were more integrated into the core mixed use area as opposed to office-over-retail. Mixed use is good, but I'd prefer more apartment units in the middle of this development. In fact, one of the early planning documents mentioned that commercial/office development would be relatively minimal based on Shaker's high taxes and a realistic view of the amount of business Shaker can and cannot attract. Third, I recall a Tudor-Gothic style rendering of the mixed-use apartment buildings similar to ones in Cleveland Hts' retail and entertainment districts; the squat, flat-roofed plain architecture in the renderings is not very inspiring -- it looks like a small light industrial or office campus development. The residential component in the rendering is grouped as single-use buildings away from the core -- on the north side of (what promises to still be) busy Farnsleigh Road. Fourth, I thought the south (Shaker Plaza) would be demolished for a more tighter, mixed-use walking area. The plaza is a strip mall. I thought the plan was to create a walkable TOD... this isn't it. Also, I thought the Rapid station or terminal would be much closer in proximity to the buildings, but it seems there's still a great deal of open space from the station platforms and the development. As the site plan and renderings suggest, the Rapid terminates at the back of the development (not the front) and there's a large surface lot between the buildings and the Rapid station -- not unlike what currently exists with the obvious upgrade that the westbound Van Aken roadway will no longer separate the Rapid from the buildings. One of the few positives I see is that there is a parking deck on the Warrensville side of the complex. Otherwise, this is quite a letdown from the drawings and plans that were initially made.

The Planning Commission gave "conceptual approval" back in February so the project wouldn't fall behind schedule. It appears some of the details were adjusted without a public viewing. Thanks dave... Certainly the concept image was far more appealing than the thick-walled "final design concept" that the Planning Commission (as well as a number of UOers) had problems with. It's hard to tell from the actual building rising in the photo as to which version actually is being built, but it appears to be more in line with the concept image: thinner or fewer walls (with more internal structural supports), more glass and airy. But maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

^^In photo 2, is smaller building Zach Bruell's Alley Cat? ... I recall there being some unhappiness regarding Alley Cat's design among the relevant design commission... Apparently it was resolved.

I'd love it if they were. I just don't see how with all the finishing work still needed to be done. Hope I'm wrong.

^^I don't know how anyone can take anything these Republicans say seriously... Lobby shmobby. Fact is, Republicans have an anti-urban/anti-transit agenda, both locally and nationally, and for them to say it has anything to lobbying is akin to them urinating in your face and telling you it's raining.

Powered testing of rail cars begins at Airport Station Two of RTD's new commuter rail cars pulled into the station at Denver International Airport for the first time Friday, April 17. Click on the play button below to see the video. http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ec_64

This looks like a winner. I've heard very good things from friends. I will soon check it out myself.

KJP, in the comments section, makes the case for tying into an intermodal transit center, but Litt ignores him. Some other poster named gadgetking similarly addressed it, but Litt only cryptically asked him who else agrees where the transit center should be located? Not surprising that Litt doesn't address the transit center in his articles because, although he's otherwise an excellent urban architecture critic, he doesn't give seem to give a crap about rail transit... He's only given extensive coverage to the Health Line, but not the Rapid while the theme and goal of his Convention Center-to-Lake connectivity articles is covering up those ugly tracks. He's even gone so far to suggest the city made a colossal mistake in 1919 by voting for the Van Sweringen's Union Terminal Tower complex instead of the Daniel Burnham proposed end-of-the-Mall train station; despite the fact the Van's proposal wisely segregated out passenger railroad traffic from freight rail traffic which, combined, had hopelessly clogged the lakefront (a situation that still to this day leads to absurdly late Amtrak trains waiting behind priority freight hauls) and despite the obvious advantage that the Van's proposal better facilitated rail transit as a through-running station adjacent to the crossroads of surface traffic and transit and is closer to CBD employment, retail and entertainment. Litt is typical of the pervasive mindset of local leaders, mainly that mass transit is not as relevant as it should be.

^MTS, you and I have been the most vocal UOers against this project. It's truly appalling that influential people, like Prof. Terry Schwartz, watched this project rushed through and didn't ask the questions she and others are asking now. Why are people NOW asking whether cheap, undesirable businesses may pop up along this un-zoned road or that it doesn't appear pedestrian-friendly or that it looks like, as the article noted, like simply what it is: a freeway-like, high-speed roadway of the type are outdated in modern cities. Why was the guy who authored the thoughtful, extensive study (noting the history going back to Porter's Clark Freeway) ignored? Why is only lip-service being paid for TOD at Rapid stations near the OC, yet nobody connected to the OC, including RTA's Joe Calabrese who publicly supported the OC and who simply wants to run BRT buses on the OC (competing against the parallel Red Line), is coming forth with any TOD specifics ... or even TOD plans? In a state with a lot of citizens financially hurting, Gov Kasich (who otherwise could care less about Cleveland) and local elites, like the Cleveland Partnership, rammed this project through on the backs of taxpayers; making it seem like this road was "imperative" for the health of the otherwise very healthy/growing University Circle. Meanwhile, as is noted in the Ohio Transit Funding thread, fellow Kasich Republicans are squeezing every penny away from needed urban transit support while making it seem like transit spending -- even the tiny bit Ohio spends -- is wasteful. In a state, city and county where we in Cleveland couldn't even pony up a comparatively measly $50 million (as opposed to $350M for the OC), to build an inter-modal Amtrak train/intercity bus/rail transit center directly connecting to the recently finished Convention Center, when Amtrak, the Waterfront Line pass and buses pass within a few hundred feet of the Convention Center. People just accept this bass-ackwards thinking with a 'that's just the way it is' mentality. NOW people questioning the OC... My answer: too late.

^I'm talking about the pols. The first 3 words in the previous article about transit cuts are "House Republicans oppose ..." There has been consistent, and justified, concern and complaint about Ohio's pitifully small transit funding by the state. And with Republicans in control, the situation is not only NOT getting better, it's getting worse... John Kasich, who now is trying to repackage himself as a moderate per his presidential aspirations, killed the job-creating, economy/people movement-enhancing Amtrak 3-Cs rail project shortly after taking office in 2010. The now sadly gravely ill ex Cong. Steve LaTourette, a moderate Republican, favored Amtrak and gave up fighting the right-wing Ohio Republican onslaught on, among other things, urban issues and transit. LaTourette grew frustrated and opted out. It's pretty clear its a partisan issue. Republicans are transit oppose-rs/destroyers all around the nation, but particularly in Ohio.... But for folks to say it's both parties, is a cop-out and it only serves to keep Republican regressive ideals on these issues, firmly entrenched. -- have Democrats not been as strong in opposition? Yes, but that's exactly what I'm talking about... Somebody's got to take a stand.

Tremendous history and photos... Now, about that KJP book... all this research and information can't just be for we UO shlubs.