Burnham_2011

Does anyone have a picture pre Euclid Corridor? Here's one During and After, but I'd love to see how it approached the Street beforehand.

I agree with Hts. I had made this a while back but thought it might be interesting to some people. The Port side of the "North Harbor Park" might be more difficult to envision... but the Burke --> Park idea seems like the right idea. Similar to what NY and Chicago have done with the areas near Lake Michigan/Hudson River.

We talked about this earlier, but I wondered if anyone has heard even remote considerations to keeping the facade of the building on the right. It would certainly help with the street presence if the new buildings went right up to Euclid like this one. "The other building that will be removed is an 84-year-old, three-story structure that has been vacant since 2000" Though we haven't seen any plans yet, I sincerely hope the new structure will run up to Euclid's sidewalk and not contain some green frontage. That "plaza" removed the density from the street. If anything, put the green space fronting prospect...

Thanks "gotta plan" and I do understand what you're saying. I have, however, seen Targets and even a Walmart (gasp!) built into urban spaces. They clearly have the capacity to redesign stores for these environments, and probably have these alternative skematics available. Even more importantly, one would think that larger stores are adapting and evolving (to stay alive) to alternative designs (beyond the big box suburban style). It just seems that the extra up front costs to making these changes would be more than made up in the long run as the enhanced shopping/living experience makes the Cedar Center area a true economic hub. It would help it combat the alternative shopping options. I understand 10 minutes with photoshop does not an architect make... but here is a very simple alteration. With some internal reconfigurations and a few "parking in back" type signs, you'd have a gorgeous streetscape and very successful center. (in my humble opinion)

So I've got a question - and I'd really appreciate some thoughts on this. I grew up near Cedar Taylor and have shopped in this neighborhood all my life. I, too, am deeply upset by the design. But since we all seem to agree this is "cheap looking" and the wrong way to go, I wonder why developers don't seem to agree. Imagine if this development was built along cedar and included a widening of the sidewalk and some benches and trees (and perhaps built in higher quality bus stops). They could have gone ahead and had all of the parking in the back, more than enough space, but created a strong presence along cedar. The difference in cost would be almost negligible as streetscaping of this scale is not much more expensive than those grass medians and their curbs in the parking lot. Perhaps some tree plots and benches (or brickwork if they wanted to "go all out") could add to the price, but we're NOT talking about more than a 1%-2% added expense. So my question is, WHY NOT? I understand the "suburban mall" model is now the standard, but people have been touting the importance, and economic benefits, to dense and interesting construction. A little goes a long way in terms of design and layout. Do developers seriously not understand this? Or is there an economic explanation for why a 'front yard" of parking spaces and various cheap looking box stores are the go-to in these cases?

KJP, aside from an article in the PD from a while back all I know of it is, is that it has an unfortunate name: http://the912-project.com/ :jo:

I dont think anyone would say that "split up" apartments, and single family homes turned into boarding homes are "good density". Density may seem like a 4-letter word to some, but the example of Hough is one of extreme overcrowding mixed with poverty and racism. One can still "sell" density to suburbanites, ask anyone who visits friends and relatives in Chicago or New York. They love dense vibrant neighborhoods, but just can't imagine it here. We need developers to take chances and build this kind of density downtown again and to show people that Cleveland can be a livable and walkable community. A dense and energized downtown core is not inherently bad, but rather its the imagination needed to see that quality of city in our hometown that is our biggest challenge. Too many people think what they see in Chicago or Boston is just not possible here. That Cleveland is suburban lots surrounded a deadzone of surface lots and a couple sports arenas. We need to change that stigma, not one that says density is bad, but that Cleveland simply can't achieve it.

Murray Hill - if your photo from above is right, these are the remaining buildings from Little Hollywood. Cringed looking at those old photos... My father told me stories of watching the sky from Collinwood and seeing "hough on fire"

This is an interesting example of saving an historic facade. It's residential (low density as well) but it's such a STRIKING example that it makes saving a downtown tower's facade seem downright easy. http://dornob.com/preservation-puzzle-historic-facade-hides-whole-new-home/ And here's an even more extreme example of how we can preserve our historic streets and buildings while changing uses: http://dornob.com/house-of-worship-old-stone-church-hides-brand-new-home/

Just for fun I "connected the dots" and used some of the diagrams to put together how this will look (vaguely). This is MUCH bigger than I expected, will have quite the presence, especially with the shiny black exterior.

The selection of cities is an effort to include cities in different geographical areas and size, in part to ensure cross country buy in and in part to see if this type of capacity building exercise works at cities of various scales.

Supporting Strong Cities and Strong Communities Around the Country Today, the Obama Administration launched Strong Cities, Strong Communities (SC2), a new and customized pilot initiative to strengthen local capacity and spark economic growth in local communities, while ensuring taxpayer dollars are used wisely and efficiently. (CLEVELAND OHIO) http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/11/supporting-strong-cities-and-strong-communities-around-country

Grand Army of the Republic Highway, the U.S. 6 Coupled with some of the pictures I've seen of Public Square during the Centennial loaded with American flags and the Cent. Arch.. WOW what a combination of words and images. ....Does anyone remember what Burnham wanted the Mall to be called? Something .... Justice?

Positively Cleveland (or a similar group) should look at these for ideas of how to promote the city: http://www.iamyoungdetroit.com/ http://www.movedetroit.org/

@Pat I'm not sure which would be worse and, sadly, it doesn't even matter. What a crappy conclusion.

Just cause I had 20 minutes to kill on photoshop...

University City Loop trolley moves forward http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_0e9d76bc-5d26-5e78-bcc5-25ea2dd4063a.html Speaking of the investment he made into renovating a building that will now be used as the Trolley servicing center: "I do not want to and I will not make a dime on this," Edwards said. Cleveland needs these kinds of benevolent developers, people willing to use their wealth to do projects with little or no consideration of personal profit. I'm not saying they need to lose money, just be willing to do things like this on the side of developing, say, a Casino.....

Just a random curiosity -- who here thinks (and how many if so) the members of our city council, the mayor, planning commission and other staffers of these persons have read Jane Jacobs (in particular the urban planning bible, "Death and Life of Great American Cities")? I know we UOians share a mindset on issues of dense livable communities in our downtowns, but it seems like the reading list for any Urban Studies 101 class in this country would include books that basically say "put pedestrians first" and "preserve old buildings" yet not only do we not get that direction in our cities, but in many cases we get the opposite. In fact, to me it seems as though the seldom occurrence when we hear our leaders discuss "walkability" or "preservation to anchor future development" are part of some new initiative --- as though the idea was just recently conceived by top urbanists.

No words: http://governor.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lveQuvgwy7Q%3D&tabid=74

One of the best articles I've read on the issue. Reminds me of Believeland a bit. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=dw-wetzel_cleveland_laughs_at_lebron_james_061211 "There are happy families and neighborhoods and the American Dream in full view. There are plenty of people who don’t have any personal problems who are quite content to keep their talents in Cleveland, a place they love just the way it is. “We get a bad rep,” said Pawel Wencel, who happily moved back from Washington, D.C., and watched the game at Flannery’s. “It’s not New York. It’s not L.A. And we don’t want it to be.” Why New York or L.A. can never seem to get that is anyone’s guess."

Agreed (again). We should use this as a template for what to do when (sadly, not if) the next building is threatened. As for the depressed mood I have to admit I'm in the same boat. Feels a little like after the Indians get knocked out of a playoff series. You know there are other fights to fight, and "there's always next year", but you can't help but need a beer and some time to shake your head. Cleveland should consider adding that quote to their seal. Cleveland, what's not to like? Cleveland, there's always next year! Both optimistic in their own way.

:shoot: Predetermined. :whip:

Not to get too political, but the 302b allocations for the Federal Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Bill (the funding bill for DOT) is horrible this year, and won't be getting better in the future. Between that an Kasich's cuts RTA is going to need to find internal measures for raising funds. And to appease the moderators.... Lack of federal funds -> RTA is in trouble -> Increased likelihood that the Casino will remain a mostly car centric accessible attraction. Too many factors seem to pull us away from what most UO users would consider common "urban" sense.

While I'm sure we could come up with 1 or 2 reasons for this, I think this is exactly what we want. Because, one, the reason you specifically site (we don't want them driving!) and two, this means they can frequent downtown safely and easily. The ride from Tower City to, say, Shaker Square is a little long for drunk riding, but doable. And yes, I speak from experience. Riding home from the bars at 2am saves lives, funds rail, and supports nightlife across a broader area. (This is also the argument in favor of a downtown loop!)

I often wonder about this. I've got to say, while I'm efficient and don't like to waste time, I've found that by having a book, magazine, or iPod on me at all times I end up getting much more out of my time regardless of waiting. Sitting waiting for (and riding on) a train gives me a chance to catch up on other things. I'm all for the gung-ho rushing around American way of getting things done. But a 20 min drive to see the Indians v. a 35 minute ride with book time/podcast time seems like an unfair battle (in favor or RTA). JMHO