Vulpster03

My intuition says that this project, compared to others downtown up until this point, will do the best job at attracting upper income people from the suburbs. 1. New "Neighborhood" - It is a completely new single-handed "neighborhood" downtown, which hasn't been done before. They have the luxury of strong marketing resources and the ability to generate a lot of press coverage. 2. Location - It is close enough to take full advantage of all that downtown has, and it has the waterfront. Unlike the Avenue District and Stonebridge, this may appear to have less safety concerns because of its borders. 3. Heinens Grocery (assuming this is true) - Everyone knows Heinen's operates in affluent Cleveland suburbs. If Heinens opens in the Flats, that is going to send a strong message. 4. Office Tenant Employees - I think more management at those firms moving to the FEB will be prompted to consider buying. Even though a lot more residential options have been made available downtown, I think a the fact their office is moving to new space in a development with new residential space makes the idea of moving downtown more attractive.

I know the graphic says "drawing shows size and location of buildings. the final design has not been released," but I can't help react to it. \ What happened to the "grid" idea? The road layout and massings look to me like a traffic headache waiting to happen. It also doesn't look very adaptable for proper expansion to the lakefront. What about all that inspiration? I thought the design and layout was supposed to evoke Little Italy, Shaker Square and even Florence. What happened to the Waterfront line? I can see the loop but where is the rest of it?

I agree. One of the basic expectations of government is to provide transportation infrastructure. We would not have an economy if we were unable to move people and goods. It seems increasingly important for today that we need to diversify our modes of transportation for the American economy to remain stable.

Low voter turnout is attributed to a decline in the individual's commitment to the community, along with many other issues. Political institutions should absolutely not micromanage our lives. I prefer to see a stronger Civil Society make decisions and the Free Market to deliver goods/services. Please know that I am a Republican. I have different opinions for different levels of government, but in general I would say that the government's role is to provide security, infrastructure and education. Civil Society is simply anything that brings people together in time and space where impressions can be made. Of course, many groups in the Civil Society category are voluntary but many are not. Civil society does not force interaction, but its nature implies interaction. It is a natural give and take between two or more people. In this give and take, many decisions can be made without "government". For instance, we do not need a government agency to ensure that infants will be able to speak a language. Civil Society will do that. We do not need a law that says people must be in lines when boarding a bus. Civil Society will do that. We do not need a mandate for people to drop off meals with their neighbor in times of need or tragedy. Civil Society will do that.

I consider civil society to be a real force of control or change in America that has value. It is often unnoticed or taken for granted because of its informal nature. Families, neighborhoods, book clubs, churches, bowling leagues, public transit routes, vetrans groups, etc. are socializing forces that help shape citizenry. They can have a positive influence on people by providing support and instill a sense of belonging to the community. Civil Society, government, free market and the individual are seperate forces, but each one has power and can make change. I understand that a system soley based on civil society, would not be the right thing in the extreme (for reasons you stated). However, I think we need to figure a way to balance out the overarching sense of individualism with increased civil society to solve todays problems. Indeed, communitarians believe that "it takes a village to raise a child," and I realize that the "village" or "small town" may not be all its cracked up to be. However, you have to admire the way civil society in a small town (not government, the free market or the individual) can actually get things done and keep the community together. You have neighbors looking out for one another, watching each others children, offering assistance in time of need. It is a very egalitarian society because peoples lives are interdependent and they are constantly reminded of their interdependency. I agree that the "village" is too narrow-minded and not realistic to accomodate the type of economy and population growth for today. However, I'd like to see civil society reinvorgated at the metropolitan level. Rather than be a means of oppression, it could be a valuable means of inclusion and support in age where disconnect is rampant. Low voter turnout, terrorism, school shootings, gang violence, teenage pregnancy, drug use and environmental destruction are symptoms of a societal disconnect. Somewhere, people fell through the cracks and felt like they didn't belong to the community.

^Believe me, I am aware of the problems with the democratic process. However I believe that individualism gone unchecked is exactly the problem with democracy today. We have less "joiners" today than we did over fifty years ago, and less people involved in political. Why? because we have over emphasized "private life". People would rather not get involved in things, because they dislike social interaction. To them, town hall type meetings, political discourse or public hearings would be "bothersome". Individualism leads people to say "not my problem" on many issues, and reduce politics to identity issues. People have lost the concept of what it means to be a citizen. It doesn't help either that sprawl has left old municipal jurisdictions in place, when the actual interdependant metropolitan community transcends those existing boundaries. Consider that we have metropolitan communities, and no metropolitan governance. Maybe more people would be involved in the democratic process if we had government institutions that reflect where communities actually exist today; the metropolitan level and the global level. Reversing sprawl by adopting new urbanism principles and creating a metropolitan government would be great for democracy. It is easier to understand what it means to be a citizen when you are sharing sidewalks, parks, public transit, and coffee shops with other people. It creates more trust and tolerance when you live in proximity to other people different than you ,and public space allows for social exchange to take place.

My opinion is that East Fourth marketing should be a little more restrained. There is a little bit of danger in over commercializing. For instance the inlaid brick East Fourth "logo" on the street and vertical lanterns are a bit much, and somewhat distracting from the experience rather than reinforcing the experience. Don't get me wrong - There should be some marketing strategy and destination spotting. Authenticity and uniqueness are important considerations, but a lot of what I see is generic flare. I do like the mix of tenants, string lights and pedestrian only traffic. I also like the idea of street performers/musicians, and discount days. I'd like to see retractble angled canopies over the patios to get more use of the patios. A normal designated municipal sign depicting an x through a car, and/or "Pedestrian Traffic Only" in Bold Futura Font would be a lot better than the current "road closed" sign.

I would say "so what"? I don't consider that nearly as unhealthy as the tendency to mind the business of others, and eventually try to remake them according to the hypothetical preferences of "society". What you're saying is that you want others to change the way they live in order to preserve something that you find important but they do not. I would say that's no different from pressuring an entertainment company to only release "wholesome" products in the name of "cultural decency". Who decides? So what? Letting individuals live in suburban sprawl arrangement undermines collective good amd the sense of community. It extols environmental, social and economic costs, and leaves things like consumption and racism unchecked. Who decides? The democratic process should decide. Part of the democratic process involves deciding what is right of the community; not to pander to individuals.

I have no problem moving the topic to a new thread, but I still believe it is relevent to urban sprawl. Individualism fuels the desire in people to live in a homogeneous bedroom community where people can go to and from their McMansion in their automobile out of their attached garage to a corporate office park and run many errands via drive-thrus. They don't want to see or talk to people different than them in the name of their own personal time, space and property.

An outrageous suggestion and a completely unnecessary policy.

Preferences toward choices that reinforce individualism become dangerous when they lead to isolation and alienation. I do not believe it is a good thing to remove social interaction from daily life. Using the technology and structure of modern life may seem more "convenient" or may present more "options", but it is important to be aware of the costs. Costs are more than time and money. There are environmental, social and civic considerations for daily life as well. I understand that face to face interaction and close spaces can be uncomfortable. Sharing time and space with others, especially when there are alternative (perhaps more expedient) ways to get things done, can seem like a chore. However, I am saying that it is probably healthy for the community's sake if more time and space was shared. It is all about people getting along better. I am not against "the individual", but think there need to be counter balance. That counter balance is "civil society", which I define as social associations and public space. There needs to be a balance, but both are essential to democracy. The same goes for "government" and the "free market" when it comes to delivering goods and services. In democracy we need both of these things, but there needs to be a balance. Government, Free Market, Civil Society and the Individual are essential four agents of control or change. Political ideology mapping is actually two dimensional with a horizontal and vertical axis. 1. Liberal (The Left) prefer government as an agent of policy control/change 2. Conservative (The Right) prefer the free market as an angent of policy control/change 3. Libertarians (The Bottom) prefer the individual as an agent of policy control/change 4. Communitarians (The Top) prefer civil society as an agent of policy control/change *A true moderate would be at the center and intersection of both these axis'

I never read that book, but maybe I'll read it when the weather gets nicer. I need a good book to read while sitting on a park bench in Public Square this summer.

Anyway, I think a lot of people on Urban Ohio would enjoy communitarian literature. It provides an ideology for diverse, densely populated and walkable communities. "Bowling Alone" by Robert Putnam (very anti-suburb) "Democracy on Trial" by Jean Elshtain (shows link between staunch individualism and poor democracy, very short read) "Habits of the Heart" by Robert Bellah (exposes individualism as a myth) Or, if you aren't into reading I'd recommend watching the film, "Me, and you, and everyone we know"

I have a huge problem with individualism to the point where community life suffers. The desire to be left alone and lead a private life is dangerous on many levels. This is what fuels preferences for the automobile versus public transit, single detached family homes versus multi-family, mp3 players versus radio, automated checkout versus cashier, and so on. Not only do these preferences create a public "cost," but it erodes a sense of community and makes one more mistrusting of other people.

I know sprawl is one of Sierra Club's issues. I'm saying that I'd like sprawl to be more out there as a grass roots issue and public campaign. I applaud lobbying efforts and government action, but it is about time the issue go mainstream. "Sprawl" unfortunetly isn't out there with the public with the likes of "pollution" or some other causes.

I really wish some group like Sierra Club would really step up and fight sprawl through advocacy and public education. I still think most people are oblivious to the issue. Consider pollution. Every one seems to know about it. Some people don't seem to care about pollution, but at least everyone knows the issue out there. I don't think the same can be said about sprawl. Everyone is complaining about gas prices and the economy. Sometimes I just want to tell people to shut up and move to Lakewood.

I don't think she was being negative. She is generally very complimentary of the fashion/retail scene in Cleveland, and I always find her columns refreshing. She is the complete opposite of Litt and Feagler. She explicitly said she "doesn't agree" with criticisms of the retail scene in Cleveland. Her point is that we have a lot of great things happening all over the city. To really enjoy the city you have to get out and explore. There needs to be more vibrant walkable commercial districts (Doesn't that sound like our mantra?) I enjoy all the different neighborhoods and commercial districts, because I know about them simultaneously. It is difficult to convince people of all the great urban character and revitalization in Cleveland when it involves a good deal of education and directions. So far, the dots haven't been connected. There are many islands of revitalization that have not yet been bridged into one vibrant walkable city. I don't think that is being negative. I'm not knocking the city or lamenting, but I do agree with Crow - along with Stark - that we've maybe reached a point where instead of creating new dots, we should create stronger connections.

Believe me, The Mall site is extremely close to Tower City. If you were to exit Tower City on Public Square, you would probably be able to spot the entrance to the Convention Center on Ontario Avenue. "Building on what you already have and help it grow and do better," is exactly why some one would favor the Mall site. 1. Most out-of-towners won't care once they're here on the lake or the river. I agree exactly, so why not be sure that the citizens of Cuyahoga (who voted to generously pay for a convention center) do what is in the best interest of fiscal responsiblity and good planning. 2. To be honest, the Mall site is much more impressive than the Tower City site from a visitor perspective. The Tower City site offers views of the Cuyahoga River and a weed choked peninsula. I'm sure out of towners would get a big kick breaking the ice over jokes about the river. The mall site on the other hand offers panoramic views of the lake, harbor, Rock Hall and Browns stadium. Out of Towners will get a stronger positive impact of the city on the lake.

I think the media was leaning toward TC. The Campbell administration and city planners were open about their preference for the Mall/Lakefront. The studies by the county and Convention and Visitors Bureau also favor the Mall/Lakefront site. The (payroll and marketing) budget of Positively Cleveland would have to be reduced in order to pay for the upkeep of the existing center if a new one is built.

I've been to Brussels several times. Everyone speaks English. You won't have a problem, and in fact Brussels is probably one of the few cities in Europe (unlike Paris) where its preferred and considered prestigeous to speak English. The EU presence there has made it that way.

I'd support this furniture/design district on lower Euclid, especially if studies indicate the region is underserved for those goods and has a shot at earning "destination" shopping status. I kind of thought that was Legacy Village's strong point, but maybe there is room for competition. I kind of thought that E.12th and the Galleria would make for a nice spot for furniture and housewares. And what does that owner of 515 envison for his space exactly anyway? Right now it looks like great space in a great location.

I live in an older Lakewood apartment building and love it. I know I sacrifice things like a dishwasher and in-suite laundry appliances, but I have such a classic unit with wood floors, trim, and things like leaded glass cabinents that I couldn't get with a "newer" apartment. Especially since I live alone these things aren't really a problem as much as you think they might be. My Lakewood apartment is also a terrific location with everything in walking distance and/or accessible by RTA to many neighborhood amenities. I am very happy with my landlord, Reliable Managment. This makes a big difference. They are pretty dedicated to maintaining the quality of living with the integrity of the apartments, which is pretty unusual. There is a unit available in my building and other buildings by the same owner. I can put you in touch with him if you send me a private messeage.

Although Cleveland is a lot larger and has alot more going on, I think Akron is a fine city and close enough to be a great place to live and work. I would recomend living in the Highland Square area of Akron. http://highlandsquare.org/index.php If I were you, I would email some of the contacts on the website about available apartments in that neighborhood. I'm sure they could be extremely helpful.

But there are also streets consisting of mostly doubles, aren't there?

I think the whole E.4th feel is just "new", not necessarily corporate. It takes a little a while for designs to mature and to develop a patron culture; both of which create the character. All this is inevitable. Don't hold it against them.