inlovewithCLE

If they can get a committed retail tenant so that this isn't just a spec building, I'd support this. I love, love, love the Times Square style billboard. I'm inclined to support most things that are flashy and add something to the city. The tenant is important though. Go get a committed tenant, then let's talk. But I'm already inclined to support this.

I've understood from day one that the FEB project is Cleveland's answer to Crocker Park so this doesn't offend me at all. It's part of the plan

yes, the owner took that, turned it into Vada, put a lot of money in the building and so far its been working for him, judging by the large crowds and the amount of local and national celebs that come

I've always thought St. Clair, between 13th and the 20's would be the perfect strip for this. A nice urban wall on both sides with plenty of available space! Vada picked up on it! (Though, I know residents at the Avenue weren't too happy about it) Well actually that was one of the stated goals of the owner of Vada when he opened it. He said he wanted to create another club district right there because of all of the available space there. He wants a Miami style nightclub district there and hopes that other club owners start opening up establishments there. He's really aggressively gone after the celebrity clientele since he opened Vada and he's gotten them. That's what he wants that whole strip to look like

They're still very popular. I'm down there a lot so I see it with my own eyes. Also, as soon as a nightclub opens up that is even moderately better than the others (ie: Vada) people go in droves. I know this for a fact, as I've noticed that local celebrities have their events or birthday parties there, national celebrities go there (Fabolous did an event there and the after parties for major concerts are held there, with the performers in attendance at times). I also see it because I occasionally party promote downtown and have had several successful events in nightclubs (I typically will only do an event in a nightclub. And location as in proximity to other nightclubs is a big deal for me. Unless you're a strong stand-out like Vada or Xecutive Ultra Lounge, which cornered the market on celebrity parties before Vada and Rumor opened). So as a person who regularly attends nightclubs and occasionally puts events together in those nightclubs and knows a lot of people who live for the nightlife, yes, clubs are still popular.

Disagree. Why can't you have unique bars, restaurants, lounges, entertainment venues, located in multiple areas? Honestly, after a while these "strips" become boring and a new and better location is found leaving the previous location a wreck. I strongly disagree. Many cities have nightclub "strips". In fact, the cities that are the best at it have multiple ones. The existence of the current strip vs a new one developing is not what causes those strips to deteriorate. It is the quality of the clubs on the strip that is of the utmost importance. In the field that I am in, there is always a negative wrap on Cleveland from people who feel that we don't have ENOUGH nightclubs. No one that I know in the fields that I am closely associated with (entertainment, sports, etc.) ever say that they don't like the fact that we have our nightclubs in a "strip". The biggest complaints that I hear about our nightlife scene is that it isn't big enough and the clubs aren't open enough. Some athletes actually consider the strength of the nightlife as one of the deciding factors as to whether they want to be here or stay here or not (I'm NOT KIDDING). People in the industries I deal with like and want sexy stuff. Sexy stuff is what influences their opinion of the city. Microbrews and sophisticated white table cloth restaurants ain't gonna cut it (not that there's anything wrong with them). You need nightclubs, you need a lot of nightclubs and most importantly you need a lot of GOOD nightclubs. The strip ain't the problem if the choices suck. Also, nightclubs can have a sort of multiplier effect on each other when they are located in the same general location (which is why many clubs in different cities choose to do so). It can lead to club hopping and everybody making money. So it helps most (not all) clubs to be located around each other. So, I don't know what the people in your circle have said to you about it. Maybe you've heard the exact opposite. But in the world I'm in, this is what I'm hearing. Even to the fact that it does play a part in some people's decisions in relation to the city.

mountain, meet molehill

I still say that a relevant city needs a nightclub district. (Especially a city trying to shed an image of being boring and having nothing to do and a mid sized city with 3 sports teams with athletes who like to be out. I know, I've been out with them in the WHD many times before)

So your business logic here is that when someone starts to lose market share to a new competitor, their reaction to combat this will be to do nothing? I agree with you. I would argue that these racinos make it MORE LIKELY that phase 2 will be built, not less. They know the deficiencies that the Horseshoe has. That WILL be addressed. They aren't going to let that money be taken off of the table for them and they're not going to let suburban racinos damage them. They want to be the ones doing the damaging. It will likely be mixed use, which will make it more feasible to do, but its going to happen.

I agree with this. Something tells me this could be more of a mixed-use project. I bet it will have some entertainment aspects to it, but I also think there may be more residential, hotel and maybe some office elements. There WILL be a gambling aspect to it (after all, why not? You have the right in the amendment to have a certain amount of slots, you aren't at capacity currently and only the casinos can have table games, which make a TON of money. Gambling will be part of it). But I agree that this will be gambling PLUS something else. It will be mixed use, possibly even some sort of performance hall component to it, similar to current casinos. The Horseshoe lost out on having the World Series of Poker taped here because its room wasn't big enough. That almost definitely will be addressed in phase 2. I still believe that there is NO WAY this doesn't get built. Even billionaires don't just piss away $85 million dollars for something that wouldn't get 85 mil on the market if they tried to sell the land. It will get built

This one paragraph says it all. Our bonafides are legit Freed left behind a city of rock 'n' roll fans. Their acceptance and enthusiasm for new bands, musical trends, and recordings made Cleveland a hot music market. Radio stations like WERE-AM, KYC (AM) "see WKYC (Channel 3)," WHK-Am, and WIXY-AM in the 1950s and 1960s established a national "break-out" market by playing new records and artists first. WERE's jocks, Tommy Edwards, Bill Randle, PHIL MCLEAN†, and Carl Reese, chose to play unknown rockers like Elvis Presley, the Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly, and a local group, the Ponytails. KYC (AM) "see WKYC (Channel 3)," the city's first formatted rock station, was followed by hit stations WHK (Color Radio) and WIXY. Progressive rock stations WNCR and WMMS established a strong FM market. http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=RR

I really think you need to revisit Cleveland history. Nothing's being replicated here. It IS who we are. People that don't know that simply are not knowledgable about our history. Yes money had a lot to do with the RRHOF being here, but we had a legitimate historical claim to it. Not only with Allen Freed and the Moondog Coronation Ball but also the Agora Theater, Upbeat, Mike Douglas, the original WMMS which was responsible for a LOT of national acts becoming famous. (Don't believe me? Just ask them). I've talked to people who said that Cleveland was the breeding group for the national record labels. If you could not make it in Cleveland, you wouldn't even get to New York City. Many of the labels had satellite offices here. In fact, MCA in particular had an office here as late as the mid 1990s. So, yes Cleveland is the Rock and Roll City and yes it does have deep roots in the city. Just because some outside of the city may not know it doesn't mean its not true. It means that they need to pick up a book and read about who we are and what we've done if they're interested. And if you say that the city hasn't promoted our history well, then I'd agree with that. But again, just because they haven't promote it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The information about it is readily available

She was not saying that services would not improve in a merger. In fact, she clearly said that a merger would be a win-win for both cities. Her only point of consternation was the idea that East Cleveland would only be providing Cleveland with warm bodies in a merger. She was saying that CLE would get more than that in a merger with EC, which is why quoting her as a way to be against a merger when the entire point of her commentary was to highlight the positives that CLE would get IN a merger with EC (a merger that she herself supports) is dishonest

And furthermore, you said that you were quoting from someone who disagrees that services would improve and thats not what she said at all. That was dishonest and you know it

You don't care about your opinion, but you used the part of her opinion that you agreed with to try to validate your own point. :roll: I was using the fact that she stated... "East Cleveland firefighters, police and medical emergency responders have some of the fastest respond times in the region" :roll: I was giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't just make that up. You said: "Here are the views of an East Cleveland resident who disagrees that services would improve." and then continued on to quote the opinion of someone whose opinion you don't care about. So why quote her at all? You quoted her opinion to validate your own point, and then when I further highlight her opinion in its full context, then you dismiss it by saying "I don't care about her opinion" even though you JUST used her opinion to try to validate your own opinion. I'm a communications guy, I know what you're doing.

You don't care about your opinion, but you used the part of her opinion that you agreed with to try to validate your own point. :roll:

Your argument loses credibility when you cherry pick. In the exact same article you quoted to discredit, the same East Cleveland resident said "I say a merger, should voters approve it, would benefit both cities, and East Cleveland would bring much more to the table than "warm bodies" -- the term Morris used in reference to East Cleveland residents -- that could boost Cleveland's population count." Her entire argument in that commentary is supporting my own point. Her argument was that East Cleveland wouldn't just be a drag on Cleveland's resources like people are saying. She's saying that Cleveland would win out of the deal too. Stop cherry picking. To say that she disagrees that services would improve is dishonest.

So what about Mov2Ohio's conversations with developers? Are they painting a prettier picture too? And do you know that Chris is painting a prettier picture? You're forming your opinion purely on speculation. Straight up speculation. And you're debating your point of speculation as if it were fact or as if that came from any source other than yourself and your own point of view. And that's your right, its a free country. But if I'm choosing between what you say and what Chris said, both publicly (which is where I heard it) AND privately (which is where Mov2Ohio heard it), I'll choose Chris. And you saying "I doubt Cleveland can magically make East Cleveland a better place". I'm FROM the northeast side of Cleveland, in Collinwood. I know all too well the condition of East Cleveland. What I'm arguing is that you don't know how bottom of the barrel EC is. A merger with Cleveland would by definition make East Cleveland better just from having more than 4 patrol cars, just from not having to worry about if the fire department can respond. And if you think our City Council is dysfunctional, I beg you, please, take a look at East Cleveland's city council. Its a disaster. You can look at stats and that's fine, but as a person who's not that far from East Cleveland, have family living in East Cleveland, know people who've tried to do business with East Cleveland, knows the mayor of East Cleveland and went to high school with the son of the former mayor of East Cleveland, trust me, a merger with Cleveland would improve East Cleveland just by not being on its own anymore. The worst neighborhoods in Cleveland are better off than the city of East Cleveland because Kinsman, Hough, Glenville, etc. doesn't have to pay its own police department, doesn't have to pay its own fire department, doesn't have its own city hall. So being a bad neighborhood in Cleveland would be better for East Cleveland than still being the city of East Cleveland. And I've outlined repeatedly why I think it would be good for the city of Cleveland as well, so I won't repeat that here.

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

@ClevelandOhio, Come on, you know just as well as I do that Cleveland being at 400,000 is not the same as East Cleveland being at under 18,000 because its vacancy in a more compact area, unless you think that East Cleveland is the same size as the City of Cleveland, and I'd love to hear that argument. Second, you are ignoring the facts to further your own point. Mov2Ohio said to you earlier in this conversation (which you did not respond to): "Because I've been in meetings and discussions with Chris Ronayne Director of UCI who not only sees the potential in EC but also fields calls daily from developers interested in developing the land along Euclid from UC to the Euclid Superior intersection. EC and UC are really not as disconnected as you're making them out to be. The main deterrent to businesses investing in EC (this from another major Cleveland developer) is the stability of city services. For example if a development were to catch fire would EC's fire department be around to put it out? Something Cleveland could help with." I don't know Mov2Ohio personally, and I'm telling you that I have also heard him say the exact same thing in a speech he gave downtown in 2010, so this is now two people who do not know each other confirming that they've both heard the same thing. You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. You're wrong.

If you're a housing developer who wants to be close to University Circle, there are literally streets in EC off of Euclid that are almost entirely vacant. You could literally tear everything down, buy out the 2-3 people still on the street, and build it to your vision. You can do virtually whatever you want to do. As someone on this forum said earlier in conversations that they've had with developers, it's not that they don't want to go into EC. They do. They could do whatever they wanted in EC and they know it. The problem is that they don't trust in EC's ability to provide basic services, which is another reason why a merger is necessary

Your opinion doesn't jibe with reality, according to the things that have come out of Chris Ronayne's own mouth. I've heard him say it and another person on this forum said that they've heard him say it as well. According to Chris (and I would think that he would know), developers want to extend into East Cleveland. Not Fairfax, not LI, East Cleveland. Chris Ronayne himself said that and I would trust his opinion more than the speculation of others on what they think the developers would rather do. Going into EC as opposed to those other neighborhoods make sense. It's a developer's haven. The city is built for 40,000 people and has less than 18,000 in it. You could essentially do whatever you wanted, build whatever you want and not worry about displacing people because over half the city is vacant. East Cleveland is the closest thing to being able to build a city from the ground up in Cuyahoga County, and we all know how developers like doing that. They could do whatever they want in EC in a way that they couldn't in Hough, Fairfax, or Glenville. So what you're saying the developers want to do doesn't match with what Chris Ronayne has said that the developers want to do. I'll trust what Chris said

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? I didn't call your idea bad because I'm Cleveland centric (although I am and make no apologies for that). I called your idea bad because...it's a bad idea.

But none are in as bad a condition as East Cleveland. And there are many neighborhoods of Cleveland that are at least stable if not some of the fastest growing residential areas in Ohio. If a merger results in the condition of East Cleveland equaling that of the worst neighborhood of Cleveland, it will be an improvement. But I still don't see enough Cleveland and East Cleveland council members going along with it unless enough financial carrots are dangled in front of them by the county, state and feds. Exactly KJP. I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to get. I guess some of those in opposition don't know how bad it really is in EC. EC is at the bottom to such a degree that turning EC into Kinsman would be an improvement. I have family in EC and I'm from Collinwood and EC borders the south side of Collinwood. As someone else mentioned, the mere existance of EC devalues damn near every neighborhood it borders. People are acting as if someone is saying that CLE can turn EC into Kamm's Corners. No one is saying that. But the city has four (FOUR!) patrol cars. They can't provide basic services for their residents. At the very least, CLE can provide those basic services and everybody knows that. Anyone who doesn't think that CLE can provide basic services to EC residents better than EC can is smoking something. And I notice how NO ONE in opposition addressed the fact that I and another commentator have heard Chris Ronayne himself say that developers are ready to move into EC and they want to, but they don't trust EC's ability to provide basic services, something a merger with CLE would immediately fix

First, I just want to say that I wholeheartedly support a Cleveland/EC merger and have for years. All the evidence points to this being the right thing to do. It's more than just getting valuable land. EC can not provide basic city services to its people. As Philip Morris put it, the argument why this is good for EC is simple, "East Cleveland's broke. Cleveland isn't." It's good for CLE because A) we need the numbers. We need to get back above 400,000 residents. B) University Circle is prime for expansion into EC. I love how people want to dispute that when I too have heard that fact come out of Chris Ronayne's OWN mouth. UC developers WANT to go into EC. But as someone else mentioned, they get skiddish when they have to wonder if anyone will be there if their building catches on fire. C) Nela Park. D) Forest Hill Park. E) The Forest Hill Neighborhood. F) Windermere. And finally G) since RTA will probably be expanding the Healthline anyway (and we all know what the Euclid Corridor can do in terms of redevelopment) it can kick start new development. It's worth it for both sides. The bottom line is that EC will never get out of that hole by itself. It can't. It's too far gone. So we can either take it over now while it's still worth something or continue to let it deteriorate and waste away and end up having to take it over later in a far worse state. A Cleveland/East Cleveland merger is inevitable. It WILL happen eventually. The question is whether you should do it now while it's still somewhat salvageable. It'll be work. But EC can be fixed. There's enough money sitting on the sidelines just waiting to invest but don't trust the sorry state of the city. If you want to turn EC around, merge now. I was one of the loudest voices in opposition before to this crazy idea mentioned here before but let me reiterate, giving CH the good parts of EC and sticking CLE with the bad parts would be outrageous. If that were EVER proposed I'd do everything humanly possible to fight that. Either EC marries CLE or EC stays single. We're not gonna be your sugar daddy and then give the currently valuable parts of EC to CH like they need it. That was an insane idea when I first heard it. It's still insane now. All of EC or none of EC. Period. Finally, those of us who say that we support regionalism, here's a prime opportunity to prove it. If we do this, the rest of the county is watching. And as long as we play our cards right and fix EC if we merge, that gives us a very strong hand in the future with other struggling suburbs. "Look, you're broke. We're not. Let us fix it. You've seen what we did with East Cleveland." So here's a prime opportunity, regionalists. In the words of my grandmother, either sh-- or get off the pot.