cadmen

^ l agree with you - a middle approach to regulation and efficiencies are usually the best approach to most things. That's a big reason my politics are center left. When there is a problem it's often the human element that is the source. That's always difficult to overcome. I guess the best approach is to do the right thing - just not too much too fast. Incremental progress but progress nonetheless.

I've been reading about how slow and inefficient various city departments for ever. Building permits and the Water Department especially are famous black holes of disfunction. Bibb says he's on it but time will tell. So Columbus is better than Cleveland but l also have been reading for years that one reason business sets up shop in the sun belt rather than the midwest is that their governments seem to bend over backwards to get things done (and yes, that's not always a good thing) while the approval process in legacy cites is often sclerotic.

@Cleburger l'm not talking about a beach here. I'm talking about a park with mature trees, trails, and some kind of natural barrier along the water. Something like Stanley Park in Vanvouver. It can be created quickly and once everything is planted it won't take alot of maintenance dollars either. Then we can fill in the rest of Burke at our leisure, as is our wont.

When/if Burke closes regardless of what ever is built there, at a minimum a strip of some magnitude along the water needs to be set aside for parkland.

Burke is large enough for a stadium, village and parking with enough land left over for other developments including a park. Of course none of this will happen immediately, if at all. That's why l said the timelines don't add up for a new Browns stadium anytime soon. It's just one of many possibilities over several decades IF Burke is closed. But if it IS closed the clock starts ticking on those possibilities.

With all the difficulties over these watered down versions maybe we'll end up with my origional hope - that we table everthing until we get a developer with deep pockets and a building worthy of the site.

^ Well my point about timelines and Burke was that in the near future a refurbished stadium is the logical choice. Now lF we're talking long term then sure, we could put in some money on the existing stadium that would buy us 10 years or so until a brand new facility is built on the Burke land. If that was the plan we would be counting on a lot of "ifs." We could do that if that if Burke is closed. If Haslam doesn't move to BP. If the landfill under Burke is stable enough. If Haslam is willing to wait all those years and if all parties come to an agreement. That's a lot of ifs that need to happen. Not saying it can't happen, just saying the logical and easier decision is to just refurbish the existing stadium and call it a day.

^ Was it universally agreed that a lakefront stadium was a poor location? I don't think so. Anyway, as @LibertyBlvd said, having it placed on Burke is a whole new ballgame. I think it has been universally agreed that closing Burke leads to a whole bunch of potentially great possibilities including a new Browns stadium. As an aside, when it was announced that Haslam wanted to build a dome in BP many of us questioned where those billions were coming from. I for one didn't think the State was going to pony up hundreds of millions and now that Cincinnati has entered the picture saying " What about us." I'm even more convinced that unless Haslam wants to take on much more of the spending load, we're going to see what l think is the best option - namely a refurbished stadium on the lakefront. We could see a new open air facility at Burke but the timelines don't appear to add up.

^ Right, and to be fair to Cleveland, compared to our rust belt (l hate that term) peers we are actually building at a good clip. That wiki site doesn't just list existing buildings, it also lists buildings proposed. Our peer cities really don't have many projects in the pipeline. And based on what we have managed to get built (never mind all of our angst over those projects that never see the light of day) we are doing alright. If we can ever figure out how to get the local economy really humming we'll see an even faster rate of new construction.

I think one component of the continued growth of UC is many if not most of the new jobs created are higher paying, certainly higher paying than we are used to seeing. Although our region is still consistently behind in average saleries for comparable positions vs. much of the country. At any rate, many of these new jobs do pay more and some of these medical/educational positions are being filled by out of towners who will be interested in living in a growing UC. We are creating a thriving community that will demand more sophistcsted amenities.

I wouldn't say it's disappointing. Sure, new market rate housing is good but so is new housing geared to affordable rents. We need both as there is a market for both. If we want to grow our population we will need all kinds of new housing. We're still coming up short there so l'm glad for these shovel reading apartment developments. Just keep building - there's still plenty of vacant land in the city for both.

So Ken with interests rates coming down, inflation coming down and property owners able to get higher rental rates per square foot do you expect to see more high rise construction coming our way? We're always reading cool proposals that get tabled due to a poor cost/return ratio. Seems we might have turned a corner.

Slow but...sure?

Anyone know if the exterior is finally finished?

Great picture and if you'll note l said that IS my favotite view. The only problem is you can only view it for a few seconds because you are in a moving vehicle. Other cities also have their best view but l bet you can enjoy them at your leisure while here at home we don't have that luxury. It kind of goes along with my thought that despite having some great looking buildings they actually don't look all that great together. It just works out that way - like our best view can only be seen for a few seconds. Unfortunate.

Unique isn't necessarily good. The taller ones are great but none of them seem to compliment each other while the shorter ones from a distance all seem to be versions of the same - monontonce. The view from Edgewater IS pretty nice though but it's just our luck that when we do add a taller tower it happens to cover up a previous one. None of this is a big deal. It's just a little game l play. Whenever l visit other cities l'm always critiquing the interplay of their urban spaces. I'm actually more interested in how buildings relate to their surroundings than how the building itself looks.

I love my city but at the risk of getting trashed on this forum l'll say something that people won't like. The emperor has no clothes. Despite adding buildings at a slow but steady clip our skyline always looks odd. It doesn't seem to jell. Other cities like Cincinnati or Kansas City with shorter buildings seem more cohesive. And my favorire view where l think our skyline actually looks pretty cool (heading east on the Main Avenue bridge) is never shown in any pics of downtown. Too bad that view is only accessible by a moving car. Oh well, guess l'm just feeling a little grumpy this morning.

Well that's the end of one era but hopefully the beginning of another. Right now the Flats seem to be some combination of slowly moving forward along with a holding pattern. If the structures on both sides of Old River are developed correctly the Flats gets a huge shot in the arm. If not, what a wasted opportunity. Worst case scenario is those great old buildings are torn down. I'm already a little nervous that one main partner is a suburban developer. Do they even care about saving old buildings?

We always think where a company builds is a lot of corporate consensus building of the Board or corner offices but many times it's the decision of one or two people.

Well then you are in favor of leaving it an airport. The worst case scenario in closing Burke is we keep the Browns downtown and the empty land waiting for development can easily and cheaply be turned into a park. Do you really think there will be zero development besides that? No, things will be added and much of it probably sooner than later. My only real concern with this kind of scenario is something schlocky will get built and then it might be hard to get rid of it. Yeah, we might hit a couple of speedbumps along the way but the alternative is Browns BP and another endless time frame of keeping Burke.

Closing Burke is the linchpin to all kinds of possibilities because of the huge surface area. And that development doesn't have to be completed all at the same time. The stadium and parking of course is first but then all of the other options from a park, Browns village, lkea or other retail and any other ideas can be built as the idea and money come together. The land is really a blank canvas. It can be developed piecemeal over time. The important thing is once the airport is gone the developers can begin to contemplate. It's not all that different from the Bedrock 20 year plan. Slowly but surely chipping away at fallow ground and creating new life.

Closing Burke and using that land for a new stadium, park, other develoment and yes, parking is by far the best solution lMO. This is our chance people. Most of us have been in support of closing Burke for decades now. Here is maybe our best (and only?) chance. What do we get out of it? Prime lakefront land finally getting developed. There is so much land down there it can support ALL of the potential uses. We keep the Browns downtown. We open the lakefront for a huge park. We get a Browns village downtown instead of BP. And yes we turn some of that vast space into surface parking or maybe some covered parking too. It's ok. We can sacrifice some of that land for ugly surface parking. After all, if you think about what does Butke look like most of the time anyway? Why those runways look an awful lot like surface parking. So let the objections go. It's alright. We'll be more than fine. There is no perfect plan. But this a very, very good plan. Let's not kill it because it doesn't give everyone everything they want.

I mean, for the most part, rooftop anything is good.

I was in Cincinnati last weekend. Stayed in a boutique hotel next door to the Music Hall. We wanted to experience and compare OTR with our town. I've been reading so much about it (been there a few times) and l was surprised it wasn't further along in its renaissance. There were quite a few lots with nothing on them - still waiting for infill. Many of the side streets were closed to traffic but all had some combination of seating and streetscaping and restaurants. A few were very elaborate. One was set up for free movies with a poster of the schedule. The best part for me (aside from the ltalianate architecture) was the street retail and people walking. We don't have nearly as much. Also, there seems to be more awareness of style - making things look good. We don't seem to care so much or even be aware style is a thing. Like the Public Square barriers or closing these streets and then doing the cheapest rendition of attracting people. We have a looong way to go.

^ Yeah. Such a waste of a prime location. We often talk about Cleveland's potential. So many possibilities but as a market the resources are just not apparent. It does seem as if there is enough demand though. I guess we'll just have to continue to wait for the day when Cleveland takes off.