surfohio

So you would theoretically shut down a charter that was outperforming a neighboring public? Some Charters are great. Some are terrible. You're painting with too broad a brush. The ones that are "great" (and there really aren't that many in this category) tend to be great because they're getting highly-motivated students/families. They're basically magnet schools that have a little more flexibility in certain areas and maybe a little less public funding (though they don't necessarily spend less because oftentimes funding comes from other places). I think charters have some promise and benefits, don't get me wrong, but I don't see them as the panacea for urban education that they're often described as. But to directly answer your question, there would be no such thing as for-profit charter schools in my hypothetical district. Non-profit charters would have a limited role, but I'd want to see them partnered with and sponsored/managed/hosted by other non-profit entities like CSU, CWRU, CC, UH, CMA etc. I'd be very cautious about bringing corporations into the mix, though I think they could potentially have a role to play. First off, thanks for answering. Second, I should preface my comments with: My wife works tirelessly as a teacher and an administrator at a public charter school. While the school does center on some interesting educational methods, overall it's a pretty normal, but with smaller class sizes. So I am biased. But I also have a good knowledge of the teachers and students that are so important in her life. I grade their papers, and as an aside, I know right quick which students have parent(s) that value education. Not every kid is cut out for public school. Heck, not every teacher is cut out for public school. So if a public charter is offering - something outside the box - something that works - and parents see that school as an attractive option then it just doesn't seem right to deny them that opportunity.

Heck yeah! Now lets get some blue insulation on that puppy asap.

So you would theoretically shut down a charter that was outperforming a neighboring public? Some Charters are great. Some are terrible. You're painting with too broad a brush.

Great shots! Dig the architecture. Even the newer Post Office looks cool. I'm actually inspired by the potential there...I guess I've seen many towns here in Ohio that look way worse. I hope they can preserve it enough for the future.

I absolutely love MAC Madness at the Q. Some really great games and it hardly costs anything. Would be nice to also see some Horizon League action!!

Burke and Dike 14?? Last time I snuck into Dike 14 there was still a good deal of cryptic military signage still lying around. Kinda cool.

^ Don't try anything funny Canada, or those missiles will rise again.

Great list, I love the PopCandy blog. Whitney M. is such a sweet nerdy fox...irresistable! Thanks for posting CleveZip. GO ZIPS!!!!!!

I'm going to foster a guess here....I often ride my bike past the construction site along St. Clair and, well, the street looks like it is coming apart right down the center line. If you ride on the other side of this crack (right side of the road) a rent a cop stationed there gets mad at you.

Here are the brick street concepts: check "Church Square" on page 14. http://www.lovelakewood.com/pdf/planning/101202_btown_pres.pdf p.s. 3231 I realize there's still some here in the 'wood that look down upon bt. I wear that derision like a badge of honor!! Seriously. I'm going to commission a Birdtown flag of some sort...always been a little jealous of Ohio City in that regard lol.

The condition of the street creates an eyesore. It's the major reason why the Madison corridor is ugly; the sheer size makes the roadway the dominant visual feature. And it is in deplorable shape. Under the Birdtown plan, at least that section of Madison will have that red "brick look" that, while not as cool as the real thing, will be a dramatic and fantastical improvement.

If you check out the areas @ Edge where the sand collects (along fences, dunes, by the treeline) you'll see that the sand is of very high quality. Really nice. If dune areas were created, and the beach wasn't bulldozed it would be much much nicer. Chalk the current situation up to bad management, lack of resources, ignorance, negligence.... I don't know. I just want to see the problems corrected asap.

I thought 5 was the whole complex featuring the "rooftop garden." Sorry to hear Gottaplan's report on the scaled down residential. I thought that building 5 was the strongest concept in the plan. Well, at least the most visually appealing. The rooftop garden looked amazing.

Good point. The hood might seem a little awkward until all the pieces are in places.

Really? I mean, adding blue panels is one thing, but you can't just keep it in its current state. I mean, it has the manufacturer's name stamped all over it! Ha ha, there's momentum on this board, but that's it I think. I'm just joking. But really, the blue rules!

Yay for Birdtown!

Where to start...I love the place, but I've had a lot of negative experiences at Edgewater. This sounds like a great opportunity; it's so easy to complain to friends but having the chance to talk to an administrator is a good thing. Personally, I would ask: 1. Could a dune system be nurtured to a. improve sand quality b. limit sand loss and c. make the beach more natural, aesthetically pleasing? This works at Headlands, why not Edgewater? 2. Hubz is right, bulldozing the beach ruins it. To the best of my knowledge no other beach in America does this, for good reason. Can we avoid this in the future? 3. Even with numerous volunteer cleanups, the beach is unacceptably trash-filled. Why can't the State keep the beach clean? 4. The presence of prostitutes and "cruisers" engaging in sex in the upper lot creates a very poor atmosphere. Why doesn't law enforcement crack down on this? Well, I have a feeling you're going to get standard bureaucrat responses, but good luck.

Thank you! There is growing momentum to keep the blue insulation as the exterior. Speaking from the position of having no knowledge of construction, I'm positive that the building doesn't even need its finishing panels; things will be fine. I say we get a petition together. But damn this city is colorless. It's pretty telling when the Seidman Building and that red trellis at Perk Park are blinding people...our eyes haven't adjusted to color or light!

I'd hate to see the Browns become a "dome" team. I was surprised to hear that it's the NFL that controls whether the roof is open or closed. Perhaps if the Browns could keep the decision theirs it would be easier to accept. The more I think about it, the more I like Lockdog's "low ceiling" idea. That would still allow enough seats for MAC football championship, soccer, college bowl games and convention use. Those 240 dates/year at Lucas Oil Stadium is a real eye opener. I'd like to see a study on what our Stadium could expect in "closed roof" event revenues.

Intriguing. If you could build that at say a fraction of the cost, you still have the Browns outside. But then you have the roof for smaller events and as a natural spur for the convention center. Cheaper to heat too. Worth considering this option if the price is right.

With the Superbowl being played in Indy this weekend, the topic on 92.3 The Fan has been Lakefront Development: Why is CLE missing out while Detroit and smaller market Indy get the superbowl? They say 18,000 hotel rooms are filled in Indy, providing 80 million to the local economy. The consensus among the hosts and callers is that the stadium was a rush job and not well situated among its surroundings. Hard to argue there, we all know that's true. It is refreshing to hear "regular guy" sports fans making insightful comments on the subject though. The hosts, Andy Baskin and Jeff Phelps, note that aside from the huge, obvious advantage of having a roof, in Indy the stadium is within an easy walk to other attractions and hotels. But in CLE the stadium is too isolated from hotels. In Detroit, Ford Field is often open to the public, but unless there's a game CLE Stadium is no draw whatsoever. They realize the tremendous potential with Science Center and Rock Hall, but unlike Indy or Baltimore Inner Harbor, there is a disconnect between our attractions; the pieces don't fit together. Developer Bob Corna was interviewed. He's a longtime retractable roof advocate, I remember he was laughed out of town years ago for his suggestion. He's arguing (rather effectively) that Lucas Oil in Indy is utilized 240 times a year vs. 11 times for Cleveland Stadium. That's unacceptable, and CLE must make investments to correct this issue. Corna has spoken to Mike Holmgren, who has been very receptive. The league is most certainly going to 18 games a year, and that will mean more cold weather games that could be played under a roof; attendance in bad weather is a concern for them. Personally, it's strange how the Lakefront is in perpetual "recovery mode" from past mistakes. Some day we'll do things right the first time! As for general Lakefront Development, Corna reiterated that the Browns aren't developers, again, the Browns shiny lakefront plan is merely suggestion. Randy Lerner might still take a more active role, I doubt it...we'll see. New topic: Retractable see-through roof! Hmm..... http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/

A very urban-centric video from Delay Trees (Finland). Delay Trees "Cassette 2012"

My wife's school is hosting a student art show at this newly renovated gallery/coffee shop. The owner is pretty great, he wants to see all of Lorain turned around. http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2011/11/30/news/mj5364885.txt

That is music to our ears. I'm wondering, what kind of terminology was used to tout projects in the 70's? It certainly wasn't "respectful to density" or "walkable."

I haven't had an in-depth with my buddy, but he did make a sarcastic remark like "it'll be really nice in 2027." I'll try and get an explanation today.