Clevelander17

Hey does anyone know what's going on with the old Apple Store space at Legacy Village? Looks like someone is doing some work to the exterior (it's covered up and partially blocking the sidewalk, even) and from time-to-time I believe I've also seen lights on inside.

Michigan State has a solid defense (especially against the run), but their offense is really pedestrian. If Ohio State executes, they have a pretty good shot at taking Sparty behind the woodshed.

Weeden had over 300 yards passing, so he can't be all that bad. ;)

For you urban policy guys, quick question (and pretend we're not talking about Cleveland/East Cleveland specifically, but more in general): is it best for planning and other purposes for otherwise connected neighborhoods to be split between two separate legal jurisdictions?

The defense is terrible. Here's my dream scenario: Alabama loses today and Ohio State goes on to play a Jameis-less Florida State squad in the title game.

Care to expand? I've explained why my idea makes perfect sense because of geography/continuity. Your primary argument seems to be that it wouldn't be fair for Cleveland to take the "bad" parts of EC without the "good." Okay, while I buy that argument if that were the end of the discussion, you first say that Cleveland gets nothing if it only takes the downhill portion of East Cleveland but then go on to imply that there is a ton of untapped potential in that area through being able to expand University Circle up Euclid Avenue (and I've agreed with this sentiment in the past). If that's true, that alone should be more than enough for Cleveland. I'm not sure what the plan for the "uphill" portion of East Cleveland might be, but as I mentioned above, it's disconnected from University Circle enough that I see no chance for potential spillover. I don't know what else Cleveland could possibly have planned for that area, but I see no reason for as much as optimism as there might be for UC expansion into EC. There's two points that I'm making here. Yes, taking East Cleveland would be valuable for Cleveland because of the untapped potential and because developers and Chris Ronayne themselves have SAID that they want to go into East Cleveland. Again, I heard it myself. (So I see optimism as you call it from what I've HEARD him say myself and what others have heard from him AND developers). But the portions of EC that you are talking about are the ones that are worth something/stabilized NOW, not in the future. Those areas are the spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down in an East Cleveland/Cleveland merger. Yes, EC has amazing untapped potential and I don't think that its gonna take that long to tap into that. BUT the areas you're talking about are ready now. And if Cleveland is going to have to do the work to stabilize the area, they should get the spoonful of sugar too. What can Cleveland do to help the "uphill" portion of EC? Having more than 4 patrol cars total would probably help. We have resources that CH does not. In fact, I remember hearing some city councilpeople in CH themselves openly talking about merging with University Heights. They're struggling too. Cleveland is going to have resources from its own coffers, state, Feds, and the private sector to turn EC around. CH doesnt have that. Merging EC as a whole with the city of Cleveland is better than breaking it apart in terms of the uphill portion because we have more resources and more access to resources than Cleveland Heights does. You say what would Cleveland's plan be for the uphill portion, I say what would Cleveland Heights plan be? And finally, yes, it is unfair to give CH the good parts of EC and stick CLE with the bad parts. I'd oppose that on principle alone. That's not the only reason, as I've just outlined, but that is a reason too why I adamantly oppose that idea I see where you're coming from, but I think you're overestimating the stability of those uphill EC neighborhoods. And we'll just have to agree to disagree about which city can better service that neighborhood. Cleveland has a lot of resources, but let's be honest, those resources often seem to aggregate in certain areas at the expense of others. In terms of servicing those neighborhoods and making decisions, I think it's easier if those 'hoods are unified as part of one city or the other. If nothing else, the Superior Triangle area of East Cleveland (which is in terrible shape and offers no redeeming value to any city) should be unified with the Cleveland Heights portion so that CH can develop some larger vision for that currently blighted neighborhood.

How exactly does the uphill part of EC benefit from CHPD presence? Not disagreeing, just looking for some clarification. I can think of some short-term fixes that would almost certainly immediately improve things, but I don't think many on here would agree with such policies and it would border on the unethical.

Care to expand? I've explained why my idea makes perfect sense because of geography/continuity. Your primary argument seems to be that it wouldn't be fair for Cleveland to take the "bad" parts of EC without the "good." Okay, while I buy that argument if that were the end of the discussion, you first say that Cleveland gets nothing if it only takes the downhill portion of East Cleveland but then go on to imply that there is a ton of untapped potential in that area through being able to expand University Circle up Euclid Avenue (and I've agreed with this sentiment in the past). If that's true, that alone should be more than enough for Cleveland. I'm not sure what the plan for the "uphill" portion of East Cleveland might be, but as I mentioned above, it's disconnected from University Circle enough that I see no chance for potential spillover. I don't know what else Cleveland could possibly have planned for that area, but I see no reason for as much as optimism as there might be for UC expansion into EC.

I agree with the above. I don't think it would be too difficult to find neighborhoods of Cleveland that are about as bad as East Cleveland...or potentially worse. I don't have any data, though, just anecdotal evidence based on driving around town and seeing that parts of Cleveland are essentially indistinguishable from parts of East Cleveland.

I know, we get it, your Cleveland-centric ideas are the only ones worth any merit and anyone suggesting an alternative is "crazy" or "insane." Just my opinion, but I question how a struggling city that is already spread too thin and neglecting many of its neighborhoods is going to be able to pay proper to another already struggling neighborhood. You've made some good arguments as to what might be able to happen to improve the "downhill" portions of East Cleveland should University expand further up Euclid Avenue past 118th. However as I've mentioned numerous times above, there are natural geographic barriers between the two parts of East Cleveland and the University Circle expansion almost certainly won't be coming up Superior/Taylor/Noble to benefit those residents. So what might be Cleveland's plan to improve that portion of East Cleveland?

Exactly my point. There are dozens of Cleveland neighborhoods that are currently neglected. How will what is currently East Cleveland benefit from coming under the Cleveland umbrella? While I guess it's true that technically it can't get any worse, isn't the point to make that area better and improve the lives of its residents?

I bet that this type of behavior is fairly typical regardless of which administration is in charge.

And I wonder how long it took for University of Chicago to become completely non-sectarian?

The University of Chicago, an academic powerhouse on par with the Ivies, would almost certainly not be what it is today without a hefty donation from Rockefeller. It frustrates me to no end that the institution could not have been seeded here. As for Lewis, perhaps it's too soon to be discussing this, but it will be very interesting to see how his estate is allocated what kind of philanthropic decisions he had planned for after his passing. It would be lovely if some of that money came to Cleveland institutions (and if I can have a pipe dream for a moment, it would be nice if he left something for his high school alma mater ;) ).

I honestly didn't know much about him other than the fact that he graduated from Heights and that his name is on buildings all around the city. After reading the above obituary, it seems like he was quite the character, but really did do a lot for Cleveland.

I was hoping that the space would be divided and more local/unique shops would move in. Oh well, this isn't terrible and should do well in that neighborhood. I just hope they don't have to have a cop working the door on cheap wing night like is necessary in Lyndhurst.

Look, in a perfect world, all of Cuyahoga County and even many of the neighboring municipalities would all become one large city-county. That's not going to happen anytime soon, so short of that, I think a piecemeal approach does work best. Now that being said, the crux of my argument regarding the uphill portions of East Cleveland are these two points: 1) That part of EC has far more in common and is much more geographically continuous with northern CH than with, say, the Glenville or Collinwood portions of Cleveland. 2) For the sake of the future of the Forest Hill/Caledonia/Nela Park neighborhoods of EC and the residents living there, what is the argument that it would be better off under the control of Cleveland than Cleveland Heights? Cleveland may have more resources than CH, but it also has more problems spread out over 77.7 square miles and is notorious for prioritizing certain neighborhoods and neglecting others. CH carries less of an overall burden and already has overlapping institutions and connectivity with the uphill portions of EC. This would be a natural extension of the northern part of CH and I think the residents there would be better served by becoming part of CH. In regards to my point about revenue-sharing, that was a suggestion for how to "soften" the blow of Cleveland only taking on the lower portion of EC. If Cleveland annexed all of EC, of course there would be no reason to share Nela Park revenues with CH. But in reality, I don't know much about Nela Park other than it has a beautiful campus of buildings and that there are some white collar jobs there. I have no idea how many, though, so this may be a discussion about table scraps compared to the number of white collar jobs that have migrated to other parts of the region.

Yep, all portions of South Euclid that are west of Warrensville Center Road are in the CH-UH district. Interestingly enough about 10-15 years ago there was a bit of a movement amongst CH residents that were zoned to attend EC schools to have that area transferred to the CH-UH school district. Obviously not much ever came of it. But as we've discussed before, municipalities and school districts are independent of one another so even if East Cleveland merges with one of its neighbors the ECSD would still remain independent unless it was involved in another merger. The tax issues in question revolve around income taxes which do go to municipality coffers and of course the biggest gem in that area would be Nela Park. I took a little drive through that area again tonight and it dawned on me that one way to "soften the blow" for Cleveland if it only got the "downhill" portion of EC would be to enter into some kind of revenue sharing scheme with CH based on monies received from Nela Park. It would also be nice if county and state grant money might be offered to any city willing to absorb EC.

First of all, unless we're talking about creating a situation where CH takes on an enclave, it would impossible to annex the poorest areas of EC alone with CH. Second, IMO, most of CH's problems derive from "north of the border" that it shares with EC. I'm just making a suggestion that might help make that particular section of EC more stable while allowing CH to gain more control over an area that is causing it problems. Third, if you look at a map or take a walk/bike/drive around the "uphill" portion of EC, you'll find that there is very real continuity with it and CH and that there is actually already quite a bit of geographic disconnect between that area of EC and the "downhill" portion (because of Forest Hill park and the elevation change along which few residences exist). There are a few decent blocks containing nice homes in the uphill area, but quite honestly these are smaller pockets and even some of these homes aren't in the best of shape. But most of the "uphill" area is not in particularly great shape and CH would still be shouldering a net burden in taking it on. Finally, in regards to the buffer I'm suggesting, it would not be a wall, I just want to close off as many side streets (and perhaps a few main streets, as well) connecting the uphill portion of EC with Terrace and Euclid Avenue below. As mentioned earlier, Forest Hill park already creates a significant natural barrier; I just want to limit the access points even further, particularly because I think it could possibly help with crime, though that may be off-base. This is not about bettering CH by adding more area, much of it (besides the park) blighted and economically distressed. It's about doing something about a problem that East Cleveland clearly cannot handle and that I don't believe Cleveland can, either, based on its track record. Speaking as a resident of the Heights, the problems of EC are bleeding into northern CH in a really bad way and this seems like a decent opportunity to stop it from getting much worse.

IMO, Cleveland is already spread too thin to effectively manage in a positive way the entire city of East Cleveland. The best hope for the "up hill" area is for it to be annexed to Cleveland Heights. There is already connectivity between that part of EC and CH including the Superior Triangle, Forest Hill Park and nearby neighborhood, and the shopping districts along northern Taylor and Noble. I also believe that many of CH's problems are because of what is bleeding over the border from EC and although I think it's a risky proposition, if CH controlled all of that area and created limited access points from Euclid Avenue, some of that could potentially be rectified.

I've stated this before and I'm sure many will disagree, but I don't think Cleveland Heights benefits from an expanded border with Cleveland. I believe that if East Cleveland is merged/dissolved into one of its neighbors, it should be split and everything roughly southeast of Terrace Road should become part of Cleveland Heights. And if I'm continuing on my fantasy scenario, CH should then go on an aggressive demolition campaign, getting rid of any and all vacant and dilapidated properties in that area and setting up as many barriers as possible between itself and everything northeast of Terrace (a la Scottsdale Boulevard in Shaker Heights).

As mentioned above, Columbus has pursued this policy to expand it's borders to cover an area three times larger than what it was in the 1950s. The difference, however, as mentioned above, is that the area that Cowtown has targeted has almost exclusively been unincorporated township land. Every each of Cleveland's border touches an incorporated municipality, so Cleveland would not be able to acquire land nearly as easily.

The Lyndhurst location was always pretty busy.

I guess it was abruptly announced yesterday that all of the Cleveland area locations of Champps are closing effective tomorrow. Anyone know the story behind this move? http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/11/champps_closing_three_greater.html

Here's the full list: http://www.walkscore.com/OH Not surprised that Cleveland Heights is ranked #7. But kind of confused by East Cleveland's ranking. Yes the city is "walkable," but what amenities are people really walking to?