inlovewithCLE

Three things. One, having parking lots in the back of a pretty unsafe neighborhood is WILDLY unworkable and impractical. If you do that, you are asking for it and there will be blood on your hands. Second, this neighborhood and others like it don't get any investment AT ALL. I am not going to begrudge someone willing to invest in a downtrodden neighborhood because he's not building "Uptown". If others want to, that's your prerogative, but I personally would love to hear the explanation one would give to a single mother with 3 kids who needs a job and why she shouldn't get it because the design of the building that holds said job does not fit "our" development standards. Third, one of the things that most of us don't like about suburban development is that it's too vanilla, too cookie cutter. But if one is advocating for every single neighborhood to look the same and be built the same, regardless of the demographics or economic realities of that particular neighborhood, aren't you then becoming what you despise? That's just being cookie cutter on the opposite side

I know a lot of people who like both. I'm in my 20s and I like both. Going to just the West 25th model alone is a really, really bad idea. It's natural for us to advocate against things we don't participate in, but u can't forget that it's more than just u here. It's more than just me here. I don't want W. 25th to become W.6th and I don't want W.6th to go away. We need BOTH. Nightclubs are still important to a city's nightlife. I want us to be on this list: look at the cities here. They all, especially the ones close to the top, all have strong, STRONG nightclubs. http://travel.usnews.com/Rankings/Best_Bar_Club_Scenes_in_the_USA/

So then what do u do to do both? Not having a nightclub district is not an option, or should not be an option. We need a nightclub district. Sports bars, expensive restaurants and freakin Starbucks is NOT gonna bring a crowd to your city that wants to dance. That's wack

"Get rid of the clubs?" Why? We DO need nightclubs, guys (and/or girls). I'm not going to West 6th to hang out at a dry cleaners. And West 25th is cool, but as KJP mentioned, it is a different clientele. We need MORE clubs, not less. Go to some of these other cities and see their nightclub districts. Most of them kick our ass. I don't want this city to be stodgy and boring. We need other things to do than sports games, restaurants and high priced beers (not that there's anything wrong with those things). I was at WXYZ at aLoft with a friend of mine who moved here from Chicago and she was complaining about how we don't have many good nightclubs here. Like big ones. I get so annoyed by the idea that we have to choose between one or the other. We need both.

Agreed. I'm from Collinwood and I feel the exact same way. Transit is used heavily on this side of town too. Can't just build everything on the west side

It doesn't! Sports are definitely the forefront of what the general public thinks of a city. There's no debate here. Those living in Chicago, Atlanta, L.A., and NY could care less about the housing and investment numbers we have Downtown. They're more familiar with our poor sports records year after year. Exactly! This isn't a hard concept to understand. If the only regular public exposure you get is your sucky sports teams, how can that not affect your image? Of course it does. There's no debating that

Oh and by the way, when I went to DC on business earlier this year, when people found out I was from Cleveland, only three things came up. 1. The weather. 2. The Browns. 3. Lebron. Don't tell me sports doesn't affect our image

Couple of points here: 1. This is Jimmy's money being spent. Not the city's. Why do we give a damn? 2. We are DECADES away from football losing its prominence. If anything, I'd argue that football is going to continue to grow. I work in the entertainment/media industry so I see it first hand. Sports games are worth MORE to television companies now because its the only form of programming where viewers these days are guaranteed to sit through the commercials. In the age of on-demand, sports is the only form of destination programming left. The NFL is leading the pack on that. 3. MLB has lost it's popularity because, lets be honest, people stopped watching after the steroid era. Not because they were so offended by it (though some were), but because you didn't get the superstars in the league anymore. (Because the superstars in the steroid era were doing unnatural things that regular players can't compete with). Totally different situation than the NFL. 4. I support a retractable roof on the stadium. I have no affinity for and no allegiance to "old time football." Screw that. Build a roof. 5. The idea that our sports teams don't have an impact on our image is absurd. Absolutely absurd. Is it the be all, end all? No. But anyone who says it doesn't have an impact is delusional. For example, I was watching SportsNation on ESPN2 the other day and they were talking about the great offseason the Cavs had and one of the first things coming out of the mouth of Max Kellerman, one of the hosts, is to call Cleveland "The Mistake on the Lake." On national television. The ex football player who was the co-host started laughing and said "what?" And Max said "we'll that's what they call it! The Mistake on the Lake." This was LAST FREAKIN WEEK. Don't tell me every dumb decision, every bumbling mistake, every negative thing sports related that lives in the annals of history starting with the word "The" doesn't have an impact on our image. That's horseradish, in the words of one of my friends. 6. And finally, this is one of the things I loved about Jimmy Haslam. I knew that when he came here, he was gonna wake up that sleepy franchise, take it out of the Stone Age and bring it to the 21st century. Jerry Jones lite.

I DESPISE country music with a passion seldom seen in the hearts of men. But I don't know how any person with common sense could see this as a negative. There's nothing negative about this. It would almost certainly bring people downtown that would not go otherwise. It is beyond idiotic to complain about that. Will I be a frequent patron? Probably not. But there's a lot of people, including some of my friends, that will be. Give me Jay-Z's 40/40 Club, but I can't see how this could possibly be a negative and wishing for it to fail is (in Jimmy Haslam's word) "candidly", stupid.

is there any info/speculation on what the new retail in phase 2 will be?

Its sad that we're so used to losing that we're unwilling or unable to do what's necessary to win. Host cities don't become host cities overnight. They become attractive by adding amenities. If u don't add the amenities, you don't become attractive. So, yes that includes adding hotel rooms and yes that includes getting a freaking dome. Does it guarantee that you'll get the events we're talking about? No. But I can guarantee You that you won't win if you do nothing. If people here are content with being irrelevant on the national stage, be my guest. I'm not.

So we can be as attractive to conventions as Chicago, Toronto or Calgary (where the temperatures at this moment are 8, 16 and 18F, respectively)? Exactly, KJP. They wont mention those cities cause it goes against the "we suck" narrative.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's not a choice between a dome and more hotel rooms. We NEED both

Defeatism reigns again in Cleveland, Ohio. (And before anyone uses this, don't give me that "I'm just being realistic" crap. That's the excuse given to rationalize their defeatism.) I'm so sick of us thinking and acting like losers. If Haslam pays for half-to-most of the cost for a dome, what does the cost matter? If we get a dome, it's unlikely that the taxpayers would pay more than half, if that. I wouldn't be in favor of the taxpayers paying most of the costs, but if it's half or less, why the hell wouldn't you do it? If you continue to just do what you've always done, you will continue to get what you've always had. In order to even be on the radar for the big events most of us want, we have to have a facility that's competitive.

Not "we". I don't want it outdoors. I want a dome. Of course I want a winner too. That's the most important. But having a team in the 21st century would be nice too. Only, what, five football stadiums have no sponsorship name? And having a retractable roof at best is another thing that updates that stadium. I have no interest in, no attachment to, and no desire to continue to be antiquated in everything we do in order to hold on to a romanticized image of a team and city that no longer exists. No thank you. Change the name of the stadium (check.), get a dome and stop playing. I feel sorry when I hear people talk this way. Because the Browns have a great tradition. And it's one that's outdoors. Winning has nothing to do with the structure. It has to do with running a great organization. Green Bay and New England come to mind, they arguably play in two of the worst climates in the league. We just have a fundamental disagreement then. I think the idea of playing football in "the rugged climate of the elements" is extremely overrated. I want a team that wins, yes, but I also want a team that looks like it plays in 2013, not 1953. In fact, one of the things I really like about Jimmy Haslam is that he clearly looks at the package of the Cowboys as a model. When they announced the changing of the name, Mary Kay Cabot on 92.3 said that the whole presentation, the video, the fanfare, the glitz and glam was indicative of the new Cleveland Browns. She referred to Haslam as "Hollywood Jimmy". I LOVE that. That's where I want us to be. This may be harsh, but I couldn't care less about "playing outdoors". Put a dome on the damn thing. Lol.

As a guy also in my mid-20s, I echo this, I don't remember the opening of TC. But I will say that compared to other cities (with the exception of big ones like NYC, Chicago, etc) Tower City is much healthier than other downtown shopping malls. I did almost all of my Christmas shopping there and got nearly everything I needed. I have asked a lot of people over the years why they don't go down to Tower City to shop, and besides the convenience of going to their nearby suburban hell hole shopping center/mall, they often give me answers that shows the still present racist/segregationist attitudes of many people. They often say Tower City has become too 'ghetto' and that they don't feel safe there. Unfortunately, I think more people hold this view than I would like to believe. I absolutely agree. I think Tower City gets a bad rap and I think part of it is because of the color of half of the clientele. (As an African-American, it would be unfair if I didn't also acknowledge that the fear is not COMPLETELY unwarranted when it comes to some of these bad ass kids). I know for me growing up, we never went to Tower City much. Not for any particular reason. We just didn't. I grew up in Collinwood so we would always go to Euclid Square Mall and also Richmond and Severance weren't that far away either so we just went to one of those. Anyway, I remember I was downtown about a year ago. And I had decided to go into Tower City. I walk in, the place is beautiful, the stores are full and there's people everywhere. I look and I'm like "this mall isn't dead!" Tower City will always be a failure if it is viewed through the lens of what it used to be. But compared to Euclid Square Mall (dead), Randall Park Mall (dead), Richmond (in decline) and others, Tower City is doing pretty damn good. In fact, I'd argue that there are only about four "traditional" malls in the county that are doing well. Beachwood, Southpark, Great Northern and Tower City. TC may have a different clientele, but they can hold their own

Not "we". I don't want it outdoors. I want a dome. Of course I want a winner too. That's the most important. But having a team in the 21st century would be nice too. Only, what, five football stadiums have no sponsorship name? And having a retractable roof at best is another thing that updates that stadium. I have no interest in, no attachment to, and no desire to continue to be antiquated in everything we do in order to hold on to a romanticized image of a team and city that no longer exists. No thank you. Change the name of the stadium (check.), get a dome and stop playing.

The point is that it's insulting (and unnecessary) to essentially say "to hell with the east side".

Unless the new and old property owners agree to assess a fee on themselves for localized security, cops walking the beat, trash pickup/beautification, etc. as has been done in Ohio City, Gordon Square, Kamms Corners, UC, Shaker Square and other non-downtown neighborhoods. Each oasis can be managed hyper-locally or if there is enough of a critical mass, then the CDC could oversee it. And those who know the history of urban policies by the State of Ohio over the past 50 years or so know that a neighborhood often has to die (or at least go on life support) before it can be revitalized. Only then can you tap funding resources to start over. In Ohio, no property can compete with a large/clean/green/lien-free piece of land at the urban fringe -- unless it is in the urban core. So in Ohio, a neighborhood has to die, have its obsolete/decayed structures be demolished, the vacated lands cleaned by nature or man, all the liens removed, the multitude of small properties assembled into much-larger properties until they are ready to compete with developable properties that exist at urban fringe. Some neighborhoods can be saved before they fail, or at least their decline slowed way down by keeping the housing stock and commercial districts fresh and physically competitive. But until we stop dragging the urban fringe farther and farther out from the geographic center of metro areas that haven't grown in population in 50 years, we're just forcing the chairs to move around on the deck of a motionless ship. I don't disagree with anything you said. In fact, something you touched on is part of my point. The east side, by and large, IS on life support already. That process you talked about has already taken place in most of the east side. Collinwood is really one of the only somewhat stable neighborhoods on the east side (not counting University Circle). Now is the time to REBUILD, not to be content with continued decline in perpetuity. As a resident of Cleveland who chose to live in Cleveland I'm going to say, yes the city has problems but some of what you say is...... I'm not particularly sure who you're addressing with this "witty" comment (since I, KJP and E-Rocc was quoted here) but if this is addressed to me, that's cute. Doesn't contribute a damn thing to the conversation, but that's cute. I'm also a resident of the city of Cleveland, BY CHOICE Anyway, most of the east side HAS decayed already. You've seen the census numbers, right? There's Collinwood, University Circle, Little Italy, Shaker Square and....then what?? Tell me what other legitimately stable or even moderately stable neighborhoods there are on the east side?

And waiting for Columbus to make things easier for us isn't the answer either. I don't believe (and I'm not sure most believe either) that we've done all we can to stabilize the east side neighborhoods that can be stabilized. In fact, I'm sure of it. If that wasn't the case, then I'd be more inclined to agree that our hands are tied. But I don't believe that's the case, not by a long shot.

Unless the new and old property owners agree to assess a fee on themselves for localized security, cops walking the beat, trash pickup/beautification, etc. as has been done in Ohio City, Gordon Square, Kamms Corners, UC, Shaker Square and other non-downtown neighborhoods. Each oasis can be managed hyper-locally or if there is enough of a critical mass, then the CDC could oversee it. And those who know the history of urban policies by the State of Ohio over the past 50 years or so know that a neighborhood often has to die (or at least go on life support) before it can be revitalized. Only then can you tap funding resources to start over. In Ohio, no property can compete with a large/clean/green/lien-free piece of land at the urban fringe -- unless it is in the urban core. So in Ohio, a neighborhood has to die, have its obsolete/decayed structures be demolished, the vacated lands cleaned by nature or man, all the liens removed, the multitude of small properties assembled into much-larger properties until they are ready to compete with developable properties that exist at urban fringe. Some neighborhoods can be saved before they fail, or at least their decline slowed way down by keeping the housing stock and commercial districts fresh and physically competitive. But until we stop dragging the urban fringe farther and farther out from the geographic center of metro areas that haven't grown in population in 50 years, we're just forcing the chairs to move around on the deck of a motionless ship. I don't disagree with anything you said. In fact, something you touched on is part of my point. The east side, by and large, IS on life support already. That process you talked about has already taken place in most of the east side. Collinwood is really one of the only somewhat stable neighborhoods on the east side (not counting University Circle). Now is the time to REBUILD, not to be content with continued decline in perpetuity.

I still think its patently absurd to essentially say we should abandon the east side for another decade, as if that'll solve the problem magically. Those who know the real history of the city of Cleveland know that abandonment of the east side is one of the reasons the East Side is in the shape that it's in now. I'd agree that there are some East Side areas that are in worse shape than others (Glenville, Kinsman, Central, etc.) and as a result, will take longer to fix. But then there are other neighborhoods on the East Side (South Collinwood, half of Hough, Saint Clair-Superior) that really only need a clear plan and a concentrated effort to redevelop. And there are other neighborhoods (like Euclid Park and East Blvd) that are beaming with potential and can be points of real strength. So not only is the idea to essentially let the East Side rot insulting, but in certain cases, it's unnecessary. I think we cannot forget that we are talking about real people here. Real people live in these neighborhoods. Someone mentioned about how some in Cleveland are suspicious of gentrification, but this is why. People know when you don't give a damn about them, and they respond in kind. And from a couple of the commenters here, it sure seemed like that's the attitude. This is why native Clevelanders don't trust redevelopment supporters like us.

Another relocation to downtown: (caught it at the end of this article) Cleveland-based PMK Customs launches site with Microsoft, collaborates with Jay-Z A Cleveland-based custom-design shoe company is picking up some rather high-profile partners. In November, PMK Customs collaborated with music mogul Jay-Z on a wild, exotic animal-skin take on Nike's Air Jordan 1 called Brooklyn Zoo. And on Saturday, it launched a custom-design site with Microsoft called PMK Design Labs, which allows users to personalize a pair of kicks using a whole palette of colors. The site lets you search by gender, style or lifestyle. You can select a pair already designed by one of PMK's artists, or swap in your own colors to match your team's colors or nearly anything in your closet. You can also Tweet the image of your creation or share it on Facebook. Prices start at around $100........ In January, Scott and his team will move from their space in Bedford Heights to a downtown office and showroom on Superior Avenue. Although clients ask him why he doesn't set up shop in New York or Los Angeles, Scott says he's committed to keeping PMK here in Cleveland. 'I love this city,' he says. 'I want our business to grow, our young designers' careers to grow and the city to grow along with us. We're not going anywhere.'" http://www.cleveland.com/style/index.ssf/2012/12/cleveland-based_pmk_customs_la.html#incart_more_entertainment There's a lot more on the article. I just highlighted what the company is and the relevant line about them moving

We need more hotel rooms anyway. I thought that was indisputable at this point. We need more rooms. The Convention Center, at least in the first 3-4 years, will increase demand for hotel rooms. The CC will definitely increase demand because the city, for all intents and purposes, hasn't had a working, functioning convention center since 2006. So, regardless of the performance of the MM, we need more hotel rooms anyway

(Also posted in CSU Developments) Cleveland State University takes another step toward converting Mather Mansion to hotel: Higher Education "A year after Cleveland State University sought proposals from developers willing to sublease its historic Mather Mansion and develop it into a boutique hotel, university officials have decided to proceed with a development agreement with the Chesler Group. The project will go forward only if Chesler, in Novelty, can put together a financial package to pay the estimated $12.6 million to redevelop the property, CSU officials said. CSU owns the 43-room Tudor mansion at 2605 Euclid Ave. Completed in 1910 for iron-mining millionaire Samuel Mather, it is on the National Register of Historic Places. The building housed various CSU departments but has been vacant since August, 2011." http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/12/cleveland_state_university_tak.html#incart_river_default Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2289.3185.html#ixzz2EgFP8VSr