surfohio

Makes sense, it looks like an atomic bomb test site.

Wondering how those new out-of-state buyers feel about paying for a new Browns stadium ;-)

I could definitely see NIMBY zoning contributing to the problem in some places (San Diego). But how do these denser cities like NYC, SF and Chicago make housing more affordable? Eventually a place becomes so desirable it simply doesn't seem plausible to subsidize a large percentage of housing.

UA has been trying to integrate with downtown for 30+ years now. It's like a 100 year plan lol. It's good to read that they're at least finally saying the right things about the Polsky Building. Here's hoping!

15 years ago Drew Carey was just about burned at the stake for suggesting a non-profit model for the Market. Is it time to reconsider the idea?

This is some real Facebook/Reddit/College freshman-level reasoning here lol. Does the NYT not know about the economics of supply and demand? From the NYT The Morning: By David Leonhardt Good morning. Housing has become so expensive that college graduates are leaving New York, Los Angeles and other expensive cities. ... “Many smaller and more affordable cities are simply more desirable than they used to be,” said my colleague Emily Badger, who did the new analysis along with Robert Gebeloff and Josh Katz. “There’s good Indian and Thai food to be found in more places. There are growing tech-worker scenes outside of the Bay Area. Many midsize cities have redeveloped their downtowns over the last 20 years.” At the same time, the pattern highlights a major problem in many large U.S. metro areas: Housing has become so expensive that even professionals with relative high salaries are choosing to leave. Emily calls it “a pretty grim indictment of these places.” It is arguably the Democratic Party’s biggest failure at the local and state levels, given that the most expensive regions tend to be run by Democrats.

^ The Forest City!

Here's some interesting overview re: the Arab refugee crisis. It's careful not to specifically blame religion, arguably side-stepping the topic for potential controversy. It points out Arabs are often unwelcoming to foreign Arab refugees because they view outsiders as a "potential thread to security and integrity" of their nation. https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/10/18/refugee-crises-in-arab-world-pub-77522

^ Oh no Lake West! Having bad flashbacks of four years of so many tickets on that street.

Yeah, Zaremba back in 2005. @mrnycand @WoollyBearemailed them to let them know haha.

My favorite will always be "Sheik Accommodations!" courtesy of The Avenue.

My head hurt from reading that haha. I heard the original La Cave spot is still empty. Man I loved that spot.

^ awesome I hope the concept works out and becomes more commonplace along the shoreline :-)

Again, what you're describing - the fed government backing grants keeping tuition artificially low - however it "works," it isn't capitalism.

Your point about maximizing use is a very good one, but there's no reason to believe the mall space won't be improved to do just that. There's a myriad of ways and endless potential here. Now today the planets are somehow in alignment for this thing to actually happen. I'm honestly amazed to say that. Finally realistic momentum. The alternative means waiting longer for something better to happen. Good luck with that.

Granted the state has been funding less in recent years, but the UT Austin was 1/3 funded by the state as recently as the 1990s. It is arguably a good example of public funding allowing capitalism to thrive.

I'm going to nitpick one sentence lol. The examples you gave of Austin and Columbus and their respective universities being propped up by public money to "allow capitalism to thrive" sounds an awful lot like social democracy.

Great points. The number of possible approaches vs. realistic approaches in our case is key however. Realistic proposals in recent memory are comparable: there was a pedestrian bridge from 5-6 years ago vs. the suddenly controversial land bridge + Shoreway boulevard concept. Given the two I think you can see the latter is vastly superior for practicality and for spurring more investment.

Valid concerns absolutely. But from what we've seen for downtown residency numbers and a somewhat near universal desire to be close to the water makes the infrastructural investment a good one.

I'm not from Ohio. I am however from places that put a lot of investment in their coastline. I don't expect people from landlocked areas to completely understand just how profoundly lacking the Cleveland lakefront is, nor how profoundly valuable proximity to Lake Erie is as an asset.

I would argue it is self-evident haha. No disrespect at all - I appreciate yours and others views, but everywhere i've ever lived it's more expensive, even drastically so, to live closer to the water.

Public money is necessary to undo the damage from a century of bad planning. There's just no way around that as it's an issue of infrastructure. * agree public input is important and we have 30+ years of it, notably from the 1990's plan.

There is absolutely market analysis for water views, at least from a residential standpoint.

Are you arguing against lakefront development?

These are good points. Water quality would be vastly improved by re-naturalizing the shoreline. I think we'll get there someday, but we are just way behind Toronto, Chicago, San Diego, etc. Unfortunately in Ohio we are just in nascent stages of fixing things along Lake Erie.