ryanfrazier

I don’t see how a hypothetical SW purchase of PPG could survive antitrust scrutiny.

Article says US Steel's headquarters would remain in Pittsburgh. Not clear from the article is whether that would be a subsidiary of a Cleveland-based Cliffs or if Cliffs would move.

I'm curious how old the building on the back side was.

Even if they move to Brook Park?

The Washington Post ranked the top 20 art museums in the U.S. and puts the Cleveland Museum of Art at 7: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/art/2024/10/24/20-best-art-museums-in-america/

So lets say the Browns build in Brook Park and the county is able to make little to no direct financial contribution to construction costs. I think they should still be pro-active about transportation infrastructure, namely connections to the Red Line. A nice, high capacity, covered walkway over Rt. 237 to the airport and its RTA station is a legitimate governmental expense that would make this site much more connected to transit. Maybe there could be improvements at Brookpark Station as well. I'm not the first person to say these things, but what I've seen from the Browns' plans so far doesn't provide for any such connection, so the county should be pro-active about it.

This Cavs facility looks great, it'll breath life into an underutilized part of the river. I have a question/comment about how it relates to the possibility of extending the CVSR to downtown. Ken's article references the "former CSX railroad right of way which was abandoned for the riverfront development." My understanding is that refers to the ROW that CVSR would need to get to Tower City, which is between the basketball facility site and Cleveland Thermal. The plans show that ROW north of Eagle Ave being turned into a new roadway, although from what I can tell it's not specifically in the site of facility that just got approval. All that is to say, the dream of connecting CVSR directly to Tower City is officially dead, right?

Qualcomm is trying to buy Intel: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/20/technology/qualcomm-intel-talks-sale.html

Great addition to the neighborhood. I do think its a bit weird though that the retail will be on west side of the building fronting Stokes and the east side on MLK is basically a parking garage entrance. I would think the east side facing Wade Lagoon and the trees would be more attractive.

He didn't say anything like this, where are you getting it from? He said that the form of the development in Brook Park is a choice we get to make. He also said there's a higher and better urban use for all the parking downtown necessitated by the stadium.

Steven Litt is retiring from the PD. He did a lot of great work.

In my perfect world, construction of new buildings and/or green space would be above CVSR tracks. But I also don't think tracks would have to go all the way to the B&O depot to be a big improvement. Cleveland Thermal would be better than the site in the plan. Or a small station could be built where the Gateway walkway juts out by the intersection of Huron and Ontario. Basically, I'm not picky, but anything closer than the proposed site would be an improvement.

This old rail station would be the perfect terminus for CVSR, but its at the complete opposite end of the Riverview site. This plan is an explicit rejection of using this building. If the plan is built out as proposed, the right of way to this old station will be completely blocked off. And if you're proposing a structure like this be built at the southeast site in the plan, 1) it doesn't have the history; 2) it doesn't have the connectivity.

In my opinion the report offers the most meager scraps in terms of connecting the CVSR. This is a huge missed opportunity. It relegates a possible connection to the farthest southeast corner of the project, barely within downtown. This site is vertically removed from the rest of downtown; anyone on foot would have a hike uphill. Its also completely disconnected from the transit hub at Tower City. If these two rail services could connect to each other they would multiply in value and utility. Once this area is built up, the opportunity to connect won't arise for a hundred years.

Good analysis of the Guardians' hitting prowess from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/07/01/cleveland-guardians-offense/

You can compare Ohio to NC and VA. Ohio has more people and more metropolitan areas to connect. That's why the state won funding 14 years ago to connect the three C's, because it was one of the most populated stretches in the country not connected by rail. Yes there has been more population growth to the other states, but I'd say that if Ohio had more policies to promote the cities then there wouldn't be so much population loss. In terms of operating costs, as I recall from this forum years ago, KJP pointed out that the annual state subsidy for running the train service would have been about $10m per year, easily manageable, and equal to what ODOT spends just on landscaping maintenance on the highways. The state never seems to have a problem subsidizing roads, but then when you start spending on trains there's a double standard.

I think a Land Bridge would be a fantastic urban space connecting different assets of the city. But with each iteration of planning it appears the Land Bridge merely becomes a Bridge. Call it the Incredible Shrinking Land Bridge. I understand that its much easier to come up with a pretty rendering than to cobble together funding and regulatory approval, but a design like the Haslams proposed would be far better in my book. That being said, some connectivity would be better than the status quo.

To be fair, some of the strength of schedule is due to the fact that every team in the AFC North ended the season with a winning record and that accounts for 6 games. No other division came close.

Needs more CVSR.

It’s a completely normal practice for developers to enter a ground lease and build on land they don’t own.

Populous is the current name of the firm that used to be HOK Sport, which designed stadiums like Camden Yards and Jacobs Field, along with many others. They’ve been one of the most innovative architects of sports facilities of the last 30 years. The Browns stadium was one of their lesser projects.

I think the building itself looks great. The public access element is still vague to me. If this project results in the riverfront pedestrian access shown and connects Eagle Avenue it’ll be a big improvement over the existing parking lot. Another upside of building the practice facility here is that it’ll be more likely for the Cavs to remain at RMFH longer into the future. (I always thought the lease extension that went with the recent publicly-funded renovation should’ve been for more years.)

The renderings seem to show a rebuilt Eagle Avenue bridge behind the facility, connecting up the hill to Gateway. Is that part of this project as well, or just wishful thinking?

Are those front-end loaders one-time-use only, like a disposable camera? Why else did they need a separate machine for each jersey barrier?

The Noble Station project is great inner-ring infill with density and mixed uses - really checks all the boxes - but man that facade is ugly.