ryanfrazier

Here's a random point for comparison of the size of Cleveland's hotel market. This NY Times article says that cities bidding for the Olympics need to have 45,000 hotel rooms. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/sports/olympics/us-cities-vie-to-carry-the-olympic-torch-in-2024.html?hp&_r=0 This Channel 5 story (from 2012) says that after the current building boom there will be 4,500 hotel rooms in downtown Cleveland. http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/major-ncaa-event-cancels-on-cleveland-citing-not-enough-hotels-close-together-downtown I know that no one is talking about Cleveland hosting the Olympics, but I thought the comparison was useful for context within the big picture.

Nice redesign, I've always thought the site was a great resource since I stumbled upon it years ago. I did notice two little things you may want to fix. First, when I click on categories (i.e. "Skyscrapers 500' and over"), the page listing the buildings doesn't have a banner image at the top of the screen. This happens for each category when I view it. Second, the front page banner image cuts the top off Key and Terminal Towers in my browser. I realized that's because the image is set to match the width of the browser window without changing its height. I have a wide screen so the image is essentially zoomed in so that the top is cut off. I hope this explanation makes sense, not sure if there's anything you can do about it.

Here's a Washington Post article looking at how Obama's plans for high speed rail nationwide have faced political roadblocks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-high-speed-rail-project-falters-obamas-vision-of-government-remains-unfulfilled/2013/11/08/669f2dda-1a61-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html?hpid=z4 There's probably not a lot new to readers of this site and it focuses more on Wisconsin's decision to refuse federal funding than Ohio's. One thing I thought was interesting was Governor Scott Walker's justification for refusing funding: because it would be cheaper for him to drive from his home in suburban Milwaukee to Madison than drive into Milwaukee, pay to park, and take the train. Well Governor, what about people who don't have a car? Or who live in the city closer to the train station? Or students in Madison who want to go to Milwaukee for work or fun? It just seems indicative of a line of thinking that leads to opposition to rail investment: if it doesn't personally benefit me, I won't vote for it.

Maryland plans to continue investing in its commuter rail system with proposals for $2b in improvements: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/20240/marc-plan-calls-for-new-stations-more-service/

ESPN pulled back on the ESPNZone concept and closed all but two in California so they're not likely to be opening more.

Does anyone know if the capitals on top of the pilasters are going to be completely replaced? (And the cornice and other 3D elements). It looks like they were shaved off to create a flat surface for the skin that covered the building. Are new versions being carved out of stone? Does the new capital just get cemented to the existing brick?

Here's a fairly positive Forbes article that discusses the Clinic, Toby Cosgrove, the Convention Center, and the Global Center for Health Innovation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/09/04/can-a-great-hospital-save-a-city/

That animation is not from the Goldberg/Landmark Management people behind the $100m project but is instead the design of a OU commenter, correct?

KJP, thanks for that in-depth answer. An understanding of these details is helpful for advocating our elected officials for more services.

Question for KJP or anyone who can answer it: What would it take to get a second train running on the Capitol Limited? I'm not talking about the politics, but in terms of finances and equipment. Currently the train departs Cleveland at 3am westbound and 2am eastbound. These are insanely inconvenient times. It's my understanding that ridership from Cleveland is low in large part because of the timing. So what would it take to run a second train at the opposite time of day? Or a third run at 8 hour intervals? What would the startup costs be for equipment and then what would the operational costs be? Are the tracks busy throughout the rest of the day? It seems to me that running a second or third time would more than double or triple ridership because having different options for departure and arrival times allows for added flexibility in travel planning, thus making rail a more attractive option. And a secondary question: is there anything technical preventing Acela trains running on the Capitol Limited? Shortening the trip would also make it more attractive. I understand it may not make a difference east of Cleveland because the tracks have to wind through the Appalachians and there is a lot of elevation change, but west of Cleveland to Chicago it seems there are a lot of long, flat straightaways.

Jfristik, to answer your question, no I don't know what the cost of the plan I posted above would be. I do agree with Urbanophile's points that it would be cheaper than the abandoned plan for E. 55th St. and already have rail access. Plus my plan also provides a use for the dredgings from the river that need a home anyway. I think my proposal could theoretically be cost neutral or even profitable because of the added value of using the land where the Port currently is for a mixed use, tax generating neighborhood. Perhaps tax increment financing from the increased value of waterfront development east of the river could be used to fund the cost of creating the new fill I propose off Whiskey Island.

The ambitious lakefront plan posted above may be out of the picture, but I think there still needs to be a long term plan for converting the port space between the river and Browns Stadium into an area that can be utilized by the general public. This is not an immediate concern because filling in that space would pull development from other parts of downtown, and right now there is momentum doing the necessary work filling in holes in downtown’s existing footprint. But in the long term the confluence of the Cuyahoga and Lake Erie stands as a piece of land uniquely primed for a walkable urban environment. So where to move port operations? If creating an island on the breakwall or moving to a new island on E. 55th are not realistic, then I propose a potentially more workable option: consolidating on an extension of Whiskey Island. Currently Whiskey Island is split between Wendy Park and the Bulk Terminal. By adding fill to the north of these two features enough land can be created to house all Port operations while leaving room for the two incumbent facilities. Two steps: fill in land north of the Bulk Terminal to reorient its footprint from east-west to north-south, then fill in land north of the Wendy Park to create a peninsula for other Port Operations. And in animated gif form: This approach would allow the Bulk Terminal to continue operations and have the same footprint while creating additional Port facilities comparable to the existing land east of the river. According to Wikipedia, the Port has 522,720 sq ft of open storage space, plus 420,000 sq ft of warehouse space, with 6500 linear ft of dock space (in addition to the Bulk Terminal if I understand correctly). By my back of the envelope calculations, the new Port space in my plan would have a footprint of about 1,600,000 sq ft, allowing plenty of room for open storage and warehouses, plus the Bulk Terminal keeping a footprint of the same size as it currently has. My plan allows for only 3150 linear feet of dock space, but it could be shaped differently to allow more. This plan would find a use for dredge material from the river, create a comparable space for the Port, keep Wendy Park in place, and open up the lakefront for a development of parkland and mixed uses. This is a long term plan, but actions to renovate the waterfront need to start now.

A note on that second image, for anyone who isn't familiar. It is the mansion of Samuel Andrews, the Scottish chemist who founded Standard Oil with J.D. Rockefeller. He contributed a lot of the technical knowledge of refining, but didn't get along with Rockefeller. He decided to sell most of his shares before the company realized its full monopolistic potential and built the mansion with the hope of hosting the queen of England. (Most of this is from the excellent Rockefeller biography "Titan" by Ron Chernow, which includes a lot of interesting Cleveland history). The house stood on the northwest corner of Euclid and E. 30th and was torn down in 1923 after being vacant for 25 years. http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=AF3 Afterwards, the house was replaced with a driving range: http://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/86

I have a question, how old are you? Most people in their 20s and in some case early 30s have no clue what urban shopping is. They see it on TV, but have never experienced it. I'll give you that Clarendon is a bit better than other centers as it's not surrounded by parking, but that wasn't the case when built. Other than that, its still a center surrounded by cheap housing trying to emulate an urban experience. MTS, to answer your question, I'm in my 30's, but I don't know what that has to do with the merits of Clarendon as a neighborhood. And yes, I have a clue what urban shopping is, I do it on a daily basis. I have to disagree with you on your statement that housing in the area is cheap. It's neither cheap in quality nor cost. The apartment building that is part of the Market Commons development has studios starting at $1750, which I don't consider cheap. http://themarketcommonclarendon.com/ Many other buildings in the area are comparably priced. Part of the cost is due to being in the DC area, but there is a premium over normal prices for living in mixed use, transit oriented neighborhoods like Clarendon. This reflects the demand to live in such neighborhoods, indicating that more should be constructed with such attributes. I don't know what your personal experience with Clarendon is, but perhaps a reassessment of your opinion is in order. I think there's an interesting debate to be had as to whether stand-alone neighborhoods like Crocker Park that are built in suburbs are good urbanism, but relating that to Clarendon Market Common is inapplicable because it was built into a century-old street grid in a dense, multi-use neighborhood.

The Randall Park Mall site seems like a good place for a stadium. There's lots of parking and if the blue line were extended that would be a bonus. A football stadium is used too rarely to take up valuable urban space, especially on Cleveland's underused waterfront as it is now.

Good to hear. I hope they do it again once the mall's complete.

The grass field on the new mall should be larger that the old version. The design of the new mall, including the slope, makes for a much more usable space than the old design. The old version above was in between a plaza and a field which thereby failed at both purposes. Since I now live in DC I see favorable comparisons between the new mall and the National Mall. (Of course they were both designed by Burnham). The Mall in DC allows for lots of random physical activity for the many young people of the area, such as flag football and ultimate frisbee. Plus, one of my favorite summertime activities is Screen on the Green, where old movies are shown on a projection big screen on the Mall at night once a week. The new slope of the Cleveland Mall is ideal for such an activity, and superior to the National Mall because it creates a natural amphitheater. In DC you often have to strain to see over fellow picknickers on the flat ground. People sitting on the slope of the Cleveland Mall, facing south, would have a perfect view for some classic movies, which would provide an excuse for some office workers to stay downtown after dark.

As a native Clevelander who has lived in Clarendon in Arlington, VA for the past six years let me sing its praises for a minute. Including it in a discussion of lifestyle centers is a little misplaced because it is a true neighborhood. It was considered Arlington's downtown a century ago when it was connected to DC by trolleys. As such it still has many decades-old buildings and storefronts that are directly on the street and are the backbone of a truely walkable neighborhood. As cars dominated the twentieth century the neighborhood was less urbanized and some blocks were turned into surface lots. It is on one of these former lots that the Marketplace Commons lifestyle center was built, but I will tell you that it is well integrated into the older parts of the neighborhood. And considering that the site of Marketplace Commons was previously a parking lot, I consider the development an infinite improvement. Yes, the stores there are almost entirely national chains (Apple, Pottery Barn, etc.), but they are well appreciated by the young, well educated yuppies that live in the area and they compliment - not compete with - the neighborhood stores. Overall, Clarendon is a balanced mix of offices, apartments, shopping, and restaurants, with a DC Metro station at its center. So when you refer to it as garbage I don't know what you're talking about. I would love to move back to Cleveland some day and a neighborhood such as Clarendon, including the small portion which is a lifestyle center, would be attractive to young urbanites.

The Natural History Museum is going forward with its previously delayed expansion: http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2012/12/cleveland_museum_of_natural_hi_3.html

This Cleveland Landmarks Commission agenda lists the Switzer Apartments at 1285 East 101st St. http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2012/02232012/index.php?pageNum_rsImage=2&totalRows_rsImage=66