Ethan

@coneflower see below

^ I wouldn't mind a few more bean counters tbh... But anyways... Cedar Lee Dora launches Friday! https://www.cleveland19.com/2024/09/26/cleveland-heights-dora-launches-friday/

I mostly agree with you. Hingetown is great, and it's definitely up and coming. I absolutely think that there's more the City can and should be doing to promote this area. That said I think you overestimate how much city planners control the future of this or any area. More nearby residents and new amenities will help tremendously. But I'd dispute that you can necessarily 'effort' any/every area into peak vibrancy. There's a certain amount of growth that's organic, and there's a gravity model component to it as well. An area with a given population can only support so many 'hot' areas, and they tend to space themselves out in rational-ish way. Of course, more residents can absolutely support more hot areas, and/or larger hot areas. The main difference between Hingetown and the Ohio City core is that far more people drive, or take transit, into Ohio City than they do Hingetown. That's likely to continue (even after transit improves, which will help a lot!). One of Hingetown's issues (which isn't really an issue) is its distance from the W25/Lorain area it's both too far and too close. It's far enough to be its own area, but close enough to be in competition. As such it's probably going to continue to be a secondary node for the foreseeable future, but that's okay though, because the rising tide that is the Near West Side lifts all boats! Even with everything I said above, I imagine this area will change a lot over the next few decades. Almost certainly for the better. Should be fun to watch. There will be plenty of developments that make us happier than this one is currently. I have very high hopes for this area, and I'm optimistic. It could very well be the case that in a few decades I'd agree that this area will be just as well located as Intro. Though I wouldn't be surprised if that's because the Ohio City core has grown to swallow it.

^ Fantastic. The linked video is worth a watch! Plan looks basically the same as I remember, only change I notice is subbing out a half basketball court with a climbing (bouldering) wall. I approve. Mostly you should just watch it because it's gorgeous! I'm excited for this park!

Down the street is technically correct, but these are a 15 minute walk apart, hardly the same area. Intro is fantastic, probably the best development in recent memory, but it's also across the street from West Side Market, and in arguably the most desirable area of Cleveland. Hingetown is still a great area, though not quite on the same level, and this development would be on the edge of it. I think whether or not it could support retail is a fair question. To be clear, I think the answer is yes, but it's debatable.

The last building was originally proposed to be an office building. Given the events and trends of the last few years, is there much of a chance the final tower ends up being residential as well? Or is the Recent revival of the commercial real estate sector enough to keep this to the original plan?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy "The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself." Yes, conflicts of interest exists, but they have absolutely zero bearing on whether or not a specific argument is true. If an oil company executive makes an argument in favor of fossil it is either true or untrue. The fact that the person making it is an oil executive is irrelevant. The person making an argument does not change the quality of an argument. It may be a reason to be suspicious, and potentially critical, of the arguments being presented, but once the discussion gets to a specific claim the origin of that claim does not matter at all. Tbh, I don't think this situation would meet the criteria for "conflict of interest," I think that's stretching the term, but my point is that even if there is a conflict of interest in this case, it has no relevance to whether or not the specific claim is true. Arguments stand or fall based on their own merits.

Getting off topic, but there has been movement to do something with this space.

I don't understand how the library is being made out to be the bad guy here. The way I see it the library aught to be thought of as a corporation whose shareholders are the taxpayers of Cleveland Heights. As such they have a fiduciary duty to make decisions that are best for the taxpayers unless there's a mandate from the voters to do otherwise. While the media seems to be on their side, it isn't obvious the voters are. The library giving away the building would be just as unethical as a CEO giving away company assets to another (nonprofit) company, they simply can't ethically make the decision the (imo biased) linked article wants them to make. The libraries fault lies earlier, possibly in managing the building at all, but certainly in renting it out at charitable rates that were too low to cover their maintenance needs. That was irresponsible and unethical. Moving forward the library should investigate selling the building to a developer, or they could consider repurposing the building to serve a more core library need. Given the financial situation, it sounds like selling it would be best. I'm sure there's a developer who would love to put a mixed use 3/4 over 1 in this location.

Yes. Parks built on top of landfills are actually surprisingly common. In Cleveland the Metroparks recently opened Brighton Park which is built on top of an old landfill.

To be clear murder is not equal to violent crime, murder is only one type of violent crime. For obvious reasons, NCVS, which asks if people have been a victim of crime, does not include murder. It is entirely possible for murder to be down and violent crime to be up. Also I don't believe the NCVS is out for 2024 yet. The original article was focused on the period of 2019 to 2023. It's possible that when it does come out it will also show a drop. Or not. I don't know. Hopefully it really is now trending down.

Who wrote it is ultimately irrelevant as the source of an argument has no bearing on its validity (genetic fallacy). The article you cited relies exclusively on the FBI statistics, which is the source the WSJ article is arguing against. Really this seems to come down to using FBI statistics or the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). I don't know which is the better route, I merely commented that I thought the article made a strong case for the latter. The two strongest arguments I saw were that the FBI's methodology changed in 2021, making comparisons farther back than that difficult if not impossible, and that reporting precincts are incomplete and inconsistent year to year. The article you cite doesn't really make an argument in favor or FBI statistics over NCVS statistics, however it does link to one (below) that does make this case. Personally I don't find this case as strong as the one presented in the WSJ. The only methodological problem presented is limited to COVID years, which the WSJ article doesn't consider (it compares before vs after). Beyond that it is mostly theorizing why the data from the survey is incongruous with more hard statistics, primarily those aggregated by the FBI. The article ends by saying the increase from 2019 suggested by the NCVS is plausible. https://jasher.substack.com/p/did-gun-violence-actually-surge-in As an aside, I tried to independently verify the analysis of the survey, but there isn't a convenient way (that I could find anyway) of doing so beyond just going to the raw data, which I don't have time for.

Cool, glad to hear we are running counter trend! Any idea why that is?

Not specific to Cleveland, but here's a report by the Wall Street Journal (so probably paywalled) arguing that violent crime is up over the last five years specifically in urban areas. They use the National Crime Victimization Survey data which shows an increase in crime limited to urban areas starting in 2019. They argue (I would say persuasively) that it is a more robust dataset than the FBI one frequently cited for reasons presented in the article. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/contrary-to-media-myth-u-s-urban-crime-rates-are-up-violence-cities-9ce714f6?st=mbCaJW

^ Agreed. It's better. It's still not a beauty or anything to write home about, but this is a significant improvement.

I could probably critique this sculpture on the margins, but who cares? I'm thrilled to see Cleveland getting more representational public art. It's something for people to stop on the street and look at that's not ugly or stupid. Fantastic! There's a lot of existing public art in this City that I can't say even that much about. It's a nice sculpture that adds to the streetscape, it doesn't need to be museum quality to make our City better. More of this please.

Moving to the main thread, since we've drifted away from the stadium. Are you suggesting it's substantially different from the environment at Wendy or Voinovitch Parks? Both of those are inside the breakwall and are nice parks that get good traffic, despite being kind of hard to get to. I agree with you though on the obsession with "beaches." We won't get a good beach here, just like we won't North of the current stadium. But people want them, and I guess to some people a mediocre beach is better than nothing. In a separate question, why does the breakwall extend so far East? I'm no expert on breakwalls or harbor protection, but it seems like it extends further than it needs to. Regardless, being behind the breakwall also presents a lot of interesting opportunities in the form of water taxi and water recreation. Again, no expert, but I imagine, it makes it a better kayak launch spot, and it's easier to run a water taxi reliably behind the break wall. I think the water at Burke is an asset, but even if we assume it's not, it's large enough that it could be a fantastic park even if it looked inward. Central Park is almost entirely artificial. Burke isn't as large as Central Park, nor as well located, it's more similar in size to Grant Park, which we should probably draw more of our inspiration from. I bring up Central Park only because I'm sure the Metroparks could do something nice with this large of a blank canvas even if it were surrounded by toxic waste (exaggerating for effect). Size matters when it comes to parks, that's one of things that makes closing Burke attractive to me, not only being on the water. Of course, the water is fine (if not Caribbean), as evidenced by two other well trafficked waterfront parks in a similar situation.

Yes, at a minimum, plans to develop portions of the muni lot would not happen if we move the Stadium three to five quarters of a mile East. It is, but looking at this as a purely numbers thing loses a lot of information. Not all the land is equally valuable, since only a tiny percentage of Burke is walkable from the downtown core. Burke, plus the confined disposal facilities, is 400 plus acres, so it's easy to say it can absorb 100 acres of parking, but when I try to mentally map it out, this isn't obvious to me. My first assumption is that any mixed use development or new neighborhood really needs to be in the southwest corner of Burke. I don't see this succeeding unless it's as connected to the downtown core as possible. One option is to put the stadium in this area. That's a significant chunk out of the mixed use neighborhood, about a third, and it would really change how it feels, but it's probably the only place you can put the stadium where it can realistically rely primarily (or at least partially) on existing downtown parking infrastructure, it will likely still come with new parking, but not nearly as much as literally anywhere else. In the below quote I visualize 45 acres of mixed use development. The other two most likely option are immediately East or North of this development. I personally hate the idea of North, as it would mean putting the stadium immediately on the lake which seems like a waste of what I'd consider the most valuable part of Burke. East is the option I'd prefer, if it could be placed East of the development area near the highway with minimal new parking I think it would be a great option, but my fear is that it starts to get too far away from the downtown parking infrastructure to realistically rely on it without adding a boatload of new parking. I don't think you can add 50-100 of acres of parking without killing what the park could have been. I was curious, so the above area basically represents the stadium plus ~40 acres of parking. Realistically we'd have more than 40 acres of parking, probably at least twice as much. The exact location isn't too important, the main point is that there really isn't any way to add anything like the parking needs of a football stadium without effectively splitting the park in two (at best). It is big enough to withstand that, but in doing so you basically immediately resign any chance of this being a Metroparks Reservation quality park immediately adjacent to downtown, which is admittedly what I want, and what I think is best for Cleveland. It helps us lean into a new angle as a forest city on a lake and a river, heavy on nature and recreation. It brings our fabulous emerald necklace into downtown with a new jewel. (Obviously this would take a long time, as parks take time to mature, the wouldn't be a quick fix). Of course this could also be designed more or less like how it was roughed up in a NeoTrans article a while ago, in which case why bother having a park at all? It will add no value and basically just be a fancy perimeter for a parking lot. https://neo-trans.blog/2024/08/30/officials-want-burke-airport-on-the-table-for-browns/ Actually this particular rough up is using nearly all of Burke for the stadium and stadium adjacent needs, the park is almost exclusively relegated to the confined disposable facility. That is a choice we could make, but I'm arguing we shouldn't. I'd be interested to see more detailed proposals for land use at this site with a stadium included. I won't name anyone because I don't want to volunteer work onto anyone, but we have a few very talented forumers who could draw up some nice schematics. There are of course other options I didn't discuss above and I would invite creative speculation. TLDR: To conclude, I'm not saying we can't have a stadium at Burke, we obviously could, I'm saying we'd have to sacrifice something, and realistically that sacrifice is coming from the possible park. I believe that sacrifice would be significant and that at the end of the day, a new central jewel in the emerald necklace is a better use of downtown adjacent lakefront land than parking for a sports stadium.

Just heard the same rumor. Not sure that's quite a full confirmation, but it is something

In 2024 the Metroparks is updating their reservation plans for Brecksville, Bedford, Hinckley and South Chagrin reservation. Draft plans and public comment is below. https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/about/planning-design/reservation-plan-updates It's worth digging into the plans if your interested, and I encourage people to submit comments if they have thoughts. Below is an interesting proposal for Hinckley that is only possible due to a recent land acquisition.

Downtowns grow. When a the original stadium was built at the current location I'm sure it seemed a lot further from the downtown core than it does now. Ironically, if we do opt to build a new stadium at Burke and we don't come to regret it 100 years from now that would be sort of sad, as it would suggest Cleveland has stagnated and the downtown didn't grow. To be clear, the stadium itself isn't the problem. We could spare 12-15 acres for a stadium out of the hundreds at Burke. The travesty would be 100-200 acres of parking that would inevitably come with it. Even 50 acres of parking on the lakefront sounds like too much to me. It's also important to note that the City wants to develop the surface lots north of the stadium and at least parts of the muni lot (~40 address total) If we just move the stadium east that parking will have to either remain or move with the stadium. Plus the fact that Burke is somewhat less accessible to downtown parking garages from the current location means that more parking will have to be built. I don't think a minimal parking scenario is realistic for a Burke stadium, and this I oppose it. There's a large opportunity cost to putting the stadium at Burke, and most of that will be due to the inevitable reality of stadium parking.

I don't think the two stadiums are equivalent. The proposed soccer stadium is tiny compared to what the Browns will want, and it is located next to two other much larger stadiums served by plenty of parking. A newly built Huntington stadium at Burke would have comparatively little parking within a short walk range, at least for a stadium of it's size. CSG can basically propose a new stadium with almost no new parking; the Browns can't (and won't) do that. As a result, a new football stadium and a large lakefront park won't be good neighbors. As an aside, I don't understand how it was universally agreed in this forum not that long ago that a lakefront stadium was a bad idea, now it seems the majority opinion is to build a new lakefront stadium several hundred yards East. I don't understand it. This seems to me like a learn from past mistakes situation, but I guess the specter of the Browns leaving Cleveland proper is enough to get people to consider using lakefront land for a stadium.

Yeah, that's probably correct--if we go the FAA approval route. It's one more reason to prefer the option of going over their head, so to speak, by asking congress to grant approval. If congress orders Burke closed through law, that supersedes any FAA regulations or standards. The report suggested one option was to build a hotel without closing Burke, probably in the same area as the previous plan. While that would be my lest preferred option, there's no reason we couldn't get started on that or other ancillary border developments while waiting for Burke to close. If a developer is interested and it can be built before closing Burke, then of course we should start on that.

I was curious to see 45 acres of Burke overlaid on a map. It basically represents the terminal area. In case anyone is thinking that's not enough space for development here's similar (slightly smaller) tracts of land laid out over the Warehouse District and the Van Aken District. 45 acres of development downtown would be transformational multi decade project. And a several hundred acre park would also be transformational for downtown and the surrounding area, just in a very different way. Personally, I'm hoping for Congress to step in and help close Burke so we're not waiting more than a decade just to start the project. But even if that isn't manageable, as the old saying goes, the best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, the second best time is today, so even if this will take decades we should get started as soon as possible. Worst case scenario we're creating a better city for our kids.

It's also worth remembering that Burke loses money, and Cleveland Hopkins is on the hook for that. That makes closing Burke an investment with a payoff period. I doubt it will be a good payoff period, but we will eventually get that money back. I think it's safe to assume the payoff period will be such that this it won't be in and of itself an argument for closing Burke, but it definitely takes the sting out of whatever the upfront cost of closing it will be. It's a lot easier to justify spending 30 million to close a liability losing 1 million a year than if it were an asset generating 1 million a year.