LlamaLawyer

There are four other shipyards. I have to imagine each of these is getting substantial investment. The jobs will probably be scattered across the U.S.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this. Unless the military aggression is coming from Canada, I think that if a war has made its way to Ohio we're in a pretty bad spot as a country, lol.

I had the same thought. For obvious reasons, Lake Erie is not a great location for the #1 repair dock, but it makes great strategic sense as a fifth location given we already have ones in Hawaii and the east and west coast. Does anyone know--can submarines travel through the St. Lawrence Seaway in winter? Obviously there's ice buildup, but they're under the ice. Do the locks even work in winter? Thanks for posting these numbers, I would not at ALL have guessed how big an impact this may turn out to be. Great news. In my wildest dreams, maybe a naval shipyard in Lake Erie resurrects plans to improve or widen the St. Lawrence Seaway. Wouldn't it be cool if the reeaal big barges could get in the Great Lakes?

We’re entering an interesting economic time where I think the region stands to benefit even without any radical change in available jobs. The first factor is remote work, which lets people live wherever they want. The next factor is full employment, which means that moreso than any time in recent history you can get a decent job most anywhere you go. Over the last couple years, we’ve been hearing a lot about millennial boomerangs coming to Cleveland. I expect that trend to continue. The #1 reason people choose where to live is a job; the #2 reason is family. Hopefully as the first reason becomes less constraining, a lot of the folks who left their Cleveland family for jobs come back for family. It certainly seems reasonable to think cities that have lost a lot of population will benefit most from these job trends.

I am all for reducing sprawl. I don't know that purposefully making traffic worse is a good way to reduce sprawl (and I'm not saying that is what you're suggesting). It just seems like all else being equal, we should go for a lakefront solution that doesn't create bad traffic and keeps high auto traffic and high pedestrian traffic areas generally separate.

I don't have data, so my impression about how much the traffic on Lakeside would increase may be simply wrong. I don't see a problem with increasing the traffic on Lakeside somewhat. I'm just saying that if you end up with a LOT more traffic on Lakeside, even with crosswalks, you're sorta defeating the purpose of the land bridge.

While I have no data to back up my position, my experience driving on Lakeside and driving on the Shoreway (both of which I do on a regular basis) leads me to believe this is not true. The shoreway isn't usually real crowded, but it's also a 60 mph stretch (that's how fast people go regardless of what the speed limit is). If you take those cars and make them go 25 instead, it would seem like a whole lot more of them.

If we end up with Manhattan-esque traffic because the population of Cleveland has reached 5 million, then so be it. If we reach Manhattan-esque traffic for any other reason ... I think we've failed somewhere. Just because we don't want to prioritize cars doesn't mean we need to make driving into a living hell, lol.

Really excellent news. Does the article give any indication of what sort of businesses were generally being started? I can't read it.

Routing all of the shoreway's traffic to East 9th then down Lakeside. The overall goal is to have pedestrians be able to go to the lake without crossing a wall of cars. Well, by moving the traffic onto lakeside you are not only creating a traffic disaster for motorists (imagine the left turn lane from lakeside onto E. 9 during rush hour) but also effectively moving the wall of cars onto Lakeside. You're turning Lakeside--a road with heavy pedestrian crossings--into a boulevard that would have easily four to five times as much traffic as it currently does. It's like saying "Let's make a land bridge but then move the shoreway so that it's just south of the land bridge and you have to cross the shoreway to get to the land bridge." I don't get it.

I'm actually glad NOACA is making this pitch, because of ODOT. They're not saying Cleveland has to do their version of the landbridge, just consider it. If ODOT is gonna stop the shoreway removal, wouldn't it be better to have a land bridge and the shoreway instead of no land bridge at all? I'm all for the city's concepts C, D, or E (B looks like it would be a disaster), but I care a whole lot more about having a land bridge than what happens to the shoreway.

That's the project that makes the least sense to put on the back burner. The Crains article said as follows: I've gotta think an announcement on the pathogen center is coming later this year.

https://www.crainscleveland.com/landscape/landscape-podcast-ivy-greaner-discusses-bedrocks-development-efforts-cleveland?utm_source=editorial-promos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20220125&utm_content=hero-readmore Landscape podcast makes what is happening in Tower City now make a lot more sense. The impression I get from the interview with Bedrock's COO is that Bedrock does NOT have a fully developed plan for how they're going to utilize Tower City. They're still in the planning and experimentation phase and they're getting tenants in partly as a way to continue to generate revenue from the space and partly as a way to figure out what works in the space long term. They're trying to support local businesses who, as a side benefit, are probably more forgiving of the transitory nature of what Bedrock is doing with Tower City than a national retailer would be. She didn't exactly say all of that, but it's what I get from listening between the lines. To editorialize a bit, this is probably a good approach. Try some different things, see what sticks, then look at what sticks and try to deduce the common theme. Hopefully the process isn't too grueling over the next couple years, and hopefully in a couple years Tower City starts to have an attractive identity (perhaps cohesive, perhaps less so) that makes it successful.

@Pugu Good point. FWIW, Zillow (which I would trust much more than some random mover) says that Cleveland is one of the three markets with the lowest listing days per home (See the bottom of this article https://www.zillow.com/research/zillow-2022-hottest-markets-tampa-30413/ ). That is a good sign and seems entirely inconsistent with move outs exceeding move ins by 50%.

https://www.hireahelper.com/moving-statistics/migration-report/ These numbers are quite disappointing, but I also don't believe them. Austin had more people move out than in? Yeah, no. Something is wrong with this data set.

You’re assuming Stark couldn’t make it work. He didn’t even try to apply for a TMUD. That makes me strongly suspect that he never gave up on NuCLEus—he just got an offer he couldn’t refuse.

Great article, @KJP! The idea of Benesch saying to Stark “promise you’ll always use us as counsel or we won’t rent your building” is very gross and I hope that’s not true.

IBM was exploring the sale of Watson Healthcare BEFORE it announced its newest partnership with the Clinic on AI and quantum computing issues. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ibm-explores-sale-of-ibm-watson-health-11613696770?mod=article_inline You'll also notice the announcement of the Clinic-IBM Discovery Accelerator partnership doesn't mention Watson at all. That leads me to wonder if the partnership and sale of Watson are interconnected. I would assume IBM is starting fresh with the Cleveland Clinic and they don't want to leave the healthcare industry, they just decided Watson isn't the right way to do it. EDIT: I just have to add, this could make a lot of sense since IBM is currently the industry leader in quantum computing with its Eagle, but tails competitors in every other area. If IBM wants to reboot, placing a significant quantum investment is a good way to do this b/c quantum enhanced AI (as soon as it's practical) will absolutely leave other AI in the dust.

It's 2 square miles. It's crazy that it used to have 70,000 people.

There's something so miraculous about infill. It's like stepping into the TARDIS and saying "it's bigger on the inside." No need to expand city bounds. No need to build on farmland or virgin forest (not that such a thing really exists here, but that's a longer discussion). No need to build brand new supporting infrastructure. It's as if there's this invisible land within the city, and suddenly it's not invisible anymore, but now there's something there.

^ How about just Ohio? You don't have to make up a fancy name for the association between Michigan and auto industry or Wisconsin and cheese or Los Angeles and movies. Don't forget that Hollywood is just the name of a place, not branding. Wouldn't it be nice if Ohio is associated with semiconductor manufacturing--no cutsie name needed?

I think a good comparison starting point for how this project will affect the region is Honda in Marysville. Honda has about 13,000 employees at a few facilities. The saturation of employees who owe their livelihood to Honda in that area is...very high. In Union County, probably at least one in ten people work directly for Honda, and probably more than half have a job that wouldn't exist without Honda either because they work at a supplier or contractor or because they work in a service industry that is propped up by employees of Honda and its suppliers. That's Union County, but there are lots of Honda employees in Columbus and the western suburbs, and there are suppliers scattered across the state. This article is a good example. https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2013/10/25/whats-honda-worth-to-ohio-suppliers.html All that being said, the Intel factory is probably a bigger deal.

Care to share for those of us without Facebook? I’m in a salty mood and nothing helps me wallow like some good nimby slime.

I appreciate the comment. For sure, I'm not worried about overdevelopment right now. My question was more theoretical.

Question for everyone -- Is there any good study, book, or other resource that deals with assessing what ideal economic development looks like? I obviously get excited about big developments coming to Cleveland since the region has been bleeding for so long, but I wonder how one judges the threshold or character of development that really helps the city rather than making it unrecognizable. A friend of mine from Seattle has talked about how he feels like Amazon ruined the city and it doesn't really have the same features he loved growing up. What does it look like to have positive development but avoid turning a city into a Manhattan clone or a San Francisco clone?