urbanlife

cleveland needs more thin towers that provide windows and views from every room. i understand rehabbing warehouses where this is not possible, but in new construction, i think there is little excuse not to build thin and provide light and views. for example, the pinnacle is very nice inside, but for close to 400k, i'd expect my second bedroom to have a window with a view of something - especially in cleveland.

Here is a link to google map of this area (bottom right near the "canal road" label) http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=cleveland,+oh&ll=41.495536,-81.691933&spn=0.003038,0.009795&t=h from walking this area and from the photos, it looks like the tracks for the CVSR currently stop at the tower city ampitheater and maybe a little further - the reason for having the initial connection below tower city. i don't think the tracks get close to the old B&O building any more. the tracks look they stop completely before SW: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=cleveland,+oh&t=h&ll=41.495948,-81.692432&spn=0.000759,0.002449&t=h is this correct? are there still ROWs in this area that have been paved over?

one other tidbit from Tuesday's board meeting. During a discussion regarding bike lanes, which apparently is adding some cost to redo some of the plans, one of the board members, huffed, and said under his breath, but into the microphone: "the next thing you know the city will want ice skating lanes as well" ...and the board laughed along. Nothing like changing the city for the better. With board attitudes like this, it doesn't surprise me at all that the project is facing challeneges.

It is my understanding that the only wooden pipes are from the original sewer pipes in the flats, and i don't think there are any of these on this section of Euclid as it has been upgraded some time ago, as opposed to the east bank of the flats where most of those buildings are much older. I don't think that the ECP project includes the work on the sewer and water lines. This work was contracted out and was the responsibility of the City. It is possible that the City received federal money for some of the upgrades, but I think they were basically forced to do the work now instead of digging up the street in 15 years to replace. I don't think any of the 200 million includes waterline replacements. That's what bothers me so much about this project. Everyone on lower Euclid vacated expecting a huge disruption caused by the project and people staying away. That's fine, but now some of these storefronts have been vacant for years (and i know that many were vacated for other reasons as well). If I wanted to invest, I'd wait until the work was done too, especially since there doesn't appear to be a waiting list to or any real competition to get leases or to purchase some of these properties. But, when is the work going to be done? Late 2008? Wow. that's a long time for more vacant storefronts. I wish they would prioritize finishing the downtown section of this project instead of the recently razed areas of midtown.

i think one reason you haven't heard much is that it keeps getting delayed and prices keep rising. At Tuesday's board meeting there was talk of more "value engineering" on this bid package as well as the other ones being sent out due to rising costs for steel, concrete, resin, etc. Stainless Steel bus shelters now equal painted steel; bricks and decorative stonework now equals colored concrete. The one thing that worries me is that they still haven't bid what I consider to be the most important sections - downtown and UC. If they skimp on this work, i'm not sure how this project is going to turn out. I hope that the reinvestmet between the innerbelt and E.79 will revitalize midtown, but i can' believe that they have left lower euclid in this state for so long. take a look at this timeline on their website: add that timeline to the preliminary work: and service doesn't start until 2009. This project has taken a long time.

Article from today's PD: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1138181530163710.xml&coll=2 2,300 caught on camera Wednesday, January 25, 2006 Susan Vinella Plain Dealer Reporter In their first month of operation, Cleveland's red light and speed cameras snagged more than 2,300 drivers, and 74 percent of them live in the suburbs or outside the area. The vast majority of the people ticketed -- about 97 percent -- were caught at busy Chester Avenue at East 71st Street, an intersection crossed by many commuters from the eastern suburbs on their way into and out of downtown. The cameras there snap pictures of both red-light runners and speeders. More than 11 percent of those ticketed from Nov. 29 through Dec. 31 live in Cleveland Heights or Shaker Heights, the records show. More at link above:

here is a graphic and complete article from today's PD: http://www.cleveland.com/crockerpark/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business/1138181784163710.xml&coll=2 Crocker Park owners ready for next phase March start planned for townhomes, lofts, houses Wednesday, January 25, 2006 Christopher Montgomery Plain Dealer Reporter Westlake's Crocker Park, which wants to be a slice of the city in the heart of suburbia, is ready for its next big phase: for-sale residential. To maintain the urban flavor of the mixed-use retail project, Crocker Park developer Bob Stark has turned to Beachwood's Coral Co., best known for its work in Cleveland and the inner-ring suburbs. Starting in March, Coral will build 116 for-sale housing units on 21 acres on the development's western edge. The $45 million project, dubbed Westhampton at Crocker Park, will take its cues from New Urbanist design principles and include townhomes, loft-style units and larger, attached homes. READ MORE AT THE LINK ABOVE

There is a sign in the window now confirming the location for Jimmy Johns. I agree the space seems quite small and the location also seems somewhat interesting. Most of these seem to be on or near college campuses. This space will probably do a strong lunch crowd, but it's not really close to the warehouse district or theater district residents to drive dinner/late night/weekend traffic.

2 good Cleveland books I recent read: Cleveland: Then and Now, John J. Grabowski and Diane Ewart Grabowksi, 2002. Contains photos and descriptions of Cleveland area landmarks, neighborhoods, and developments showing a "then" photo and a "now" photo of the same area. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1571458794/qid=1138047239/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5453121-6948819?n=507846&s=books&v=glance Cleveland: A Concise History, 1796-1996, 2d edition, Carol Poh Miller and Robert A. Wheeler, 1997. Follows the rise and fall of Cleveland and contains photos and other tables of interesting information. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0253211476/qid=1138047524/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-5453121-6948819?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Here is a shot of the covered soccer stadium from a few weeks ago:

i've heard in a number of presentations from some of these same developers that "if the cleveland area doesn't grow at all, there is demand for 30,000 units (or people - i've heard it both ways) downtown over the next 10 or 15 years." I think that all of these projects are chipping away at this number - 200 units here, 200 there. but for the "pesht" idea to really work, then i agree there should be advertising in other cities and in national publications - ie. wall street journal real estate section. have you every seen how many ohio properties are listed in these pages - usually 0. the region and the city need to think big and not just plan on poaching the new residents from the already existing population in the local suburbs. has anyone actually seen the data on the study i mention above?

if you go to the blow up of the graphic, they do 2 calculations: 1.5 and 2 spaces per unit, and that dictates the number of units based on a finite parking availability. i'm all for less parking generally, but i personally don't think many people will want to purchase something in higher price ranges if it doesn't include parking (even if you just park your sports car for nice drives on the weekend and ride the rail all week). plus, this section isn't particularly suited for other use (maybe open space) - wouldn't the first 3 or 4 stories be looking underneath the bridge? at the end of the day, structured parking is better than a surface lot IMO.

actually back to the topic, here is the current org chart. Where would you put the TOD box?

RTA has done 2 things right...first the new web based trip planner and now a new website?? what's going on here? http://www.riderta.com are here is a nice photo to put a face ion RTA: go joe go!

my first reaction is that this is a terrible idea and defeats the purpose of ECP and truly connecting donwtown and UC. However, if investment was done properly and other roads were significantly improved around this area, it could work. ie, creating a signature blvd or circle around the clinic with improved traffic flow, landscpaing, etc., utilizing Chester and Carnegie. here is a graphic posted by mayday on a demolition thread:

What happened to the hanna fountains? why and when were they removed?

Here is the graphic:

i'm just glad the building has been tagged. go cleveland.

what was the story on why this closed in the first place?

i can't believe that these aren't here yet. both of these would be great additions downtown. and a baja fresh of course.

Here is a bad scan of the "now" photo... <img src="http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b102/urbanlife/vegaave.jpg" alt="Vega Ave">

I walked around E4, but didn't see any signs of progress on this. Any information on what storefront and timeline?

Panhandler Square on the Lake

i don't think cleveland / rta is necessarily anti-rail, but i don't think expansion will occur either until the current system becomes more successful through: - TODs which in turn increase ridership - Better policies (pre-paid fares, real time signage, improved security/preception of security) i think that RTA feels burned on operating the waterfront line. for a number of reasons that was a great project in 96, but no one has stepped up to build anything around those stops (and i know that some of them are hard to build around). But, it hasn't generated nearly the ridership everyone had hoped. i also think that for TOD purposes, we are constrained by past decisions to cut costs, placing lots of stations in rail trenches and industrial areas. However, if we can get 2 or 3 good new TODs going around red line stations especially, i think we will have momentum for expanded rail. Consider this though. For the coming year, rail will generate maybe 15% of the total system ridership, but the capital budget for rail projects is higher that buses (excluding ECP): 2006 capital budget: $156.1 million $70.0 million, BRT, Euclid Corridor Transportation Project $27.5 million, Other $23.5 million, Rail $20.5 million, Buses $ 6.7 million, Transit Centers $ 4.2 million, Equipment & Vehicles $ 3.9 million, Facilities $200,000, Bus Garages BOTTOM LINE: I think we need to show RTA that rail is working by supporting it. One of the biggest draws of rail vs. BRT is supposed to be the permanent nature of the route and stops. Seems Cleveland hasn't quite figured this out, because there are a lot of un/underdevloped stops and the rail line has been permanent. BOTTOM LINE2: RTA is not an innovator, but an operator. This is where we could have the biggest impact in introducing new and better ideas on service and expansion (besides the broken record "expand rail"). Has anyone been on one of the new buses? I have. What is new? Nothing that I can see. RTA has been buying this same model of bus for 5 or 6 years now, and a lot of things have changed, but what has RTA introduced along these lines? Nothing. Security Cameras? Stop announcements?

more progress - the pad has been poured. and it has only been 7 months. maybe they'll have this up by the summer at this pace. <img src="http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b102/urbanlife/IMG_1310.jpg" alt="concrete pad">