LlamaLawyer

I'm sure people will mostly focus on the Jacob's lot building, but if that picture actually does reflect the SHW HQ, we could be looking at a second building comparable in size to the downtown Hilton. 45 stories times 17 ft./story* = 765 ft.; 22 stories times 17 ft./story = 374 ft. That to me is the biggest potential news from this, since I don't think it has been clear whether SHW is looking at a second building at all for now. Also if they're still in conceptual planning phases, I see that as a good thing. SHW's DTE ratio is trending down, so they're more likely to have increased willingness to finance a larger project the longer they wait. * approximation based on Devon Energy Tower in OKC height per floor. The ratio includes Devon Energy Tower's significant crown, so it's probably a bit ambitious.

100% agree this is a good idea. There are several stadiums that serve NBA and NHL teams simultaneously. If they can arrange scheduling for the 150+ NBA/NHL games, they could make 25 work for an NFL and (hopefully someday) MLS team.

According to Google Maps it would be (depending on where the entrance is) a seven minute walk from Progressive field. Could be even less with a little roadway reworking. Imagine three major league sports stadiums within a ten minute walk.

I know the 4ish% doesn't mean population growth. What jumped out to me was "migration-driven housing demand" which implies actual population growth.

Houston and Austin are the big shockers in this to me, particularly since it's metro numbers, not central city numbers. Is this graphic suggesting there is actual YOY GROWTH in the CLE metro? Do you know if there's a basis for that claim other than inferred causation or the license plate anecdotes we like to throw around?

Sometimes it happens in that order. Which is why this Flats East Bank TIF is so exciting if we want to live in a growing city without moving.

I'm not a marketing expert, particularly in large B2B supply chain transactions, but I would think the sustainability plan (though I don't think it's really carbon neutral) could be a huge asset for Cliffs if they focus on it. Assuming they become the lowest carbon emission per pound of steel supplier out there (which it sounds like they have a plan for), they should guilt every auto manufacturer out there into buying from them. Most auto manufacturers are lasered in on lowering CO2 emissions over the next couple decades, but the carbon footprint of a car is pretty big even if it's totally electric. Seems like Cleveland Cliffs could capitalize on that message and corner a large part of the market.

BrewDog is a really good company in many ways. This addition would be far more than "just another brewpub."

Very nice design. Will be a good transition between the older brick stuff to the east and the shiny new stuff to the west. Fingers crossed they use real brick.

That was my exact thought going through. Some of the newer builds are interesting and I could imagine a cool neighborhood with a lot of similarly scaled townhomes. E.g., I kinda like the skinny colonials although they're set way back. Does anyone know what the zoning laws are like in Nashville? I'm trying to imagine the zoning framework that allows a lot of this to exist in a city that has enough growth and economic prowess to be picky about what gets built.

And as a little further follow up, two more points. 1. Cleveland has reasonably good park access right now, but the number one strike against it is acreage, since there really aren't any big city parks right now. See https://www.tpl.org/city/cleveland-ohio 2. The 7 cities with the worst park systems are all growing, economically successful cities. So economic success does not automatically lead to good parks.See https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/best-worst-cities-convenient-public-parks-and-why-it-matters/159186/

I agree that our urgent need is job growth, but I don't agree that amenities will follow. Lots of cities are horrific urban planning disasters despite significant growth. As far as Burke's contribution to the economy, I'm sure it has a significant contribution. It's just hard for me to imagine that a combination of Hopkins and Cuyahoga Airport (perhaps with upgrades as @KJP suggests) wouldn't take over nearly all of that economic impact pretty quickly. Are there actually businesses for whom Hopkins is too far away from downtown?

Came here to point out these numbers. These ... can't possibly be right. Our civilian labor force did not grow by 90,000 people from September to October. It says we gained 10,000 in employment from September to October which sounds reasonable and is good news. But the unemployment, labor force and employment numbers are...implausible. So let's run with the numbers! In really good news for the region, extrapolating September and October's data, we should have the largest economy in the midwest by 2025!!! See: https://xkcd.com/605/ EDIT: By the way, if you look at Detroit, they have the same whack trends in numbers for August, September, and October. https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/mi_detroit_msa.htm Clearly

https://news.metrohealth.org/the-metrohealth-system-announces-plans-to-expand-inpatient-behavioral-health-beds-at-its-cleveland-heights-medical-center/ Here's the Metro release. 225 jobs is a big deal for Cleveland Heights and it's great they will be new, not poached from elsewhere in the region!

Plans look great. The canal basin park paired with the Irishtown Bend Park and Lincoln Park will give the near west side some of the best park access in the county. These parks are really invaluable. I know we get excited about shiny new buildings more than anything else on this forum, but if you have good jobs and great amenities (e.g. parks!!), the apartment buildings build themselves.

You don't realize until you drive by how imposing the structure actually is from ground level. It won't actually be the tallest building in Cleveland Heights but it will almost certainly have the most impressive street presence. It makes me sad I never got to see the old Doctors Hospital building.

I still can't help but notice that on Stark's website they still have pictures of NuCLEus 2.0 up (aka two towers but not jenga) as opposed to NuCLEus 3.0 (one tower), which we never actually saw more than a massing of. I've brought this idea up on the forum before and people rejected the idea, but I still can't help but wonder if NuCLEus 3.0 is the "we need to move now, Benesch won't wait any longer" version and NuCLEus 2.0 is the version Stark would still like to build if the mythical TMUD or some other magical financing creature comes along. The capital stack for NuCLEus 3.0 just seemed so feasible that I wondered why they couldn't just make something happen. But it all just feels like hoping beyond hope at this point anyway.

If you live on Public Square and have a bike but no car, you can get to the following lakefront parks within 15 minutes: Wendy Park Kirtland Park Voinovich Park None of those parks are all that great. If Burke were a big housing development or something the city didn't own, we'd all have to just say "Oh well, even though we are a city on a lake, we do not have a truly great lakefront park which is accessible to downtown residents without a car." But Burke is owned the city and if we just got rid of the airport, planted some trees, and left it doing virtually nothing else, you would have a very respectable and large lakefront greenspace that all downtown residents could enjoy. That's the bare minimum and we could incrementally improve the park from there. I and many others are obsessed with Burke because it's such a big potential. If we want people to live downtown, we need amenities. People relocate primarily because of (1) jobs, (2) family ties, (3) cost of living, and (4) amenities. #4 is the only item you can directly control through public investment, and Burke is the biggest opportunity for new amenities, primarily for downtown residents, but secondarily for the whole region. I have two little kids and live in Cleveland Heights where we can walk to several nice parks. If I lived downtown at, say, Harbor Verandas, the easily accessible greenspaces would be Voinovich Park, Willard Park, and the malls/public square. Those are not the kinds of parks where you can keep two little kids amused on a Saturday afternoon. Burke could be that though, and downtown, especially some of the sorely underdeveloped areas in historic Asiatown, could be amazingly attractive places to live for people who love parks. Cleveland can be a city where everyone downtown can ride their bike to a 450-acre grassy, forested park. Think about what a draw that is. Imagine if Central Park were a giant airport. It would be insanity. If Burke becomes a park and we look back on its life as an airport, I think we will all recognize the same insanity. The final reason for the obsession is what you point out about the FAA. Realistically though, (1) if the city leaders push to get Burke closed down, they will succeed. Do you really think Marcia Fudge and Sherrod Brown wouldn't be happy to sponsor bills closing Burke if the Mayor and council ask them to? (2) No matter what, the process will take years. That's all the more reason to act now. (3) No time is better than now to get the process moving. The airline industry is facing the worst catastrophe in its history--worse than 9/11. The airline industry may not fully recover for years. Cleveland Hopkins would actually benefit from the increased traffic from Burke. With the IX Center closing, there's a lot of space for expansion even if Hopkins knows that absorbing some of Burke's traffic is on the horizon. So the timing really couldn't be better, and we should get the ball rolling in the next couple years or we're missing some opportunities.

Complete agreement from me. And on the other hand, Burke does have the potential to be the greatest lakefront greenspace in the entire Great Lakes. Not saying it would be, but it realistically could be with a significant and smart investment. That's an amazing opportunity.

The other thing about Buffalo though is that the picture you posted is just a small segment of their waterfront. And the entire remainder of the waterfront is beautiful lakefront park, marina, etc. So I can understand people not talking too much about about the lakefront housing because the other 90% of the waterfront is being used well. As we all know, Cleveland has the opposite. Between the E. 55 marina and Wendy Park, the only part of our waterfront that is being used well is teeny-weeny Voinovich park and the surrounding attractions. Everything else is bare pavement.

I’ll send you an invoice for the nightmares this will give me.

Except that Burke isn't just unbuildable, it's actually an airport right now. The land will never be so valuable that a new project will just happen because the city leaders believe Burke should be an airport forever. Cleveland is also not Los Angeles. Driving down St. Clair from the highway to E. 13 it's just underutilized parcel after underutilized parcel. If we're lucky, most of that will be built on 30 years from now. All of those parcels are easier to develop than Burke. As an aside, that's a reason this city has so much potential--we could quadruple the central business district's population and still have vacant lots to build on. What Burke does have that those parcels don't is a great location and the ability to be one of the greatest urban parks in the country. That will only happen with city action. The private sector cannot do it. Sorry for the biting tone, but I'm feeling especially passionate about Burke today.

I strongly disagree for a number of reasons. First, the land area of Burke may very well be as much as or more than all the surface parking lots you highlighted. Second, having better parks makes an area much more livable, particularly when you've got Edgewater Park so crowded during the summer that the police literally block it off and don't let more people in. The highest and best use of the area that is Burke Lakefront Airport is a giant lakefront park like the one in Milwaukee from my picture above. Third, the two problems (Burke and surface lots) are really not comparable to each other. The surface parking lots downtown are a symptom of urban decay. They will go away as downtown continues to be revitalized. There will probably always be some surface lots--Manhattan, the Philadelphia riverfront, and Chicago Loop all have at least a couple surface lots--but as development continues, the Cleveland lots will dissipate. Burke Lakefront Airport, on the other hand, is not a symptom of urban decay. It is a symptom of bad urban planning. As the region finally rebounds and eventually grows, removing Burke will not become easier. There are other airports in bad locations. You can have terrible urban planning in a growing city. Boston Logan is in a terrible location. Unfortunately for Boston, there is no alternative airport. Fortunately for us, there is an alternative airport which is well connected to downtown and could absorb 100% of Burke's traffic easily. So I don't really find surface lots and Burke Lakefront Airport analogous at all. And I think, frankly, that Burke is and should be a much more political issue than surface lots. The city owns Burke and can decide what to do with it. Most of the surface lots you reference the city has only indirect control over.

^^^Why want buildings on the lakefront though when we could theoretically have something like this.