Ethan

Cedar Lee Meadowbrook

Good article from Crains about closing Burke. No new information, but mirrors my opinions pretty well. https://www.crainscleveland.com/commentary/crains-editorial-be-bold-about-burke

Various screen snips from their presentation.

A mixed use building with pedestrian connections on Scranton and Abbey levels would be very cool. It would provide a nice oasis between duck Island and Tremont, it could maybe also include a vertical pedestrian connection, maybe a restaurant with a skyline view to justify that vertical pedestrian connection... Lots of potential, probably won't happen, but it could be cool.

They officially reopened as of 3 days ago.

Sure, but why the discrepancy in lanes? If that's the case, why not bump both directions up to 3 lanes West of Woodland? Weird mash-up of comprises? It does seem to back up more going Westward than Eastward, though maybe not just for that reason. I also find it interesting that I get directed to take the OC for only the Eastward leg of my commute, induced demand in action! (Though more lanes isn't the main reason for that). Now that I'm writing this out, I'm guessing the answer is exiting versus entering the freeway. Fewer lanes means when there's traffic it backs up further, and they were probably trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent traffic from the OC from backing up all the way to the freeway.

Some Cleveland sign pics.

Is this opportunity spinning off from the OC, or would this have happened regardless?

What was the justification for making thus boulevard 3 lanes till Woodland going East, but 2 lanes going West from Woodland? Just something I've been wondering about, and can't find / don't remember the answer.

The amount of sharp changes across state lines suggest to me that data was not collected, recorded, and/or processed uniformly in every state. As such, I doubt you can draw much of any conclusions about drivers in different states from this map.

Agreed, but they want even more public money for the brook park stadium. If they can't get $600,000,000 of taxpayer money for the bells and whistles renovation, I doubt they'll be able to get $1,200,000,000 of taxpayer money for a new build in a small suburbs. That means they will have to either put up much more of their own money, or they will have to move to a different market that will be more liberal with taxpayer funds. Maybe the State will step in and save the day, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the pool of public money is actually larger for a renovation in Cleveland than it would be for a new build in Brook Park. My question is more, If at the end of the day the total taxpayer funds available to them are only $300,000,000, half of their lowest request, what will the Browns do? Will they pack up and leave, or will they settle for a more bare bones renovation? My instinct is that they'll grumble, but ultimately take the money, stay put, and settle for basic renovations. That said, it's a game of chicken, and I can't be sure how it'd work out.

^ The question is what exactly the Browns mean by non-starter? Or put another way, or what? The article states they will break their lease, okay, but they've previously stated they won't leave North East Ohio. One of those would have to be proven false. If the city calls the Browns' bluff will they leave for another media market? Maybe, I don't know, but if forced to bet, I think the Haslams might actually blink first. The public attitude for sweetheart stadium deals is turning against the owners fairly quickly, and the Model law, while perhaps legally dubious, will still greatly increase the price tag for leaving. Obviously that kind of brinksmanship isn't ideal, and I don't want to see the Browns leave, but the City shouldn't be afraid to play hardball.

Fantastic article, the $400,000,000 approximation for the next 30 years is very valuable, as that provides a rough estimate for what a bare bones renovation might cost. Now that we know the numbers I'm firmly in the minimal renovation camp. Assuming a 50-50 public/private split (not saying I support that, but it's the Haslams position) that saves the taxpayers $400,000,000 versus the bells and whistles renovation, and $1,000,000,000 versus a whole new stadium. That's a lot of money! Take your pick of more impactful projects we could do with that money, Landbridge, CHEERS, branch red line through Lakewood, etc.

I haven't seen this posted anywhere, but here's the planned phases for the park. I think we're on 3. I haven't found an accompanying timeline for this yet.

The Metroparks and Flats Forward are on it, see the above quoted excepts from the June 2022 agenda. It looks like there's at least some money acquired. Not sure if more will be needed, or the timeline.

I think I was basically spot on in my initial reaction. This doesn't look much like the original rendering, at least with regards to the green roof / integrated landscaping. I'm getting tired of green washing renderings to get projects approved, and then not following through. Still, they did plant a few trees in the end, and that's better than the average building, so I can't be too negative. I'd just like renders to actually represent what will be planted.

If it closed tomorrow, yes it could be an option, but wouldn't that be committing the same fundamental error of putting a stadium on the lakefront, just further East? It would either need to be on the southwestern most corner (the most valuable part), or it would be entirely cutoff from downtown, and need to be surrounded by lots of surface parking. Not a great use of lakefront property, but I suppose near dead man's curve could give it good highway access. Regardless, closing Burke would be a decades long process, if it happens at all, which is still far from certain. It isn't an option in the timeline the Haslams are considering.

I'm wondering if the very car/commuter focused road design of the E18th extension has any connection to ODOT approval of the project. Could they have been in conversation behind the scenes? Would ODOT still have approved the project without this additional arterial? I don't know, perhaps their concern was really 100% the safety of the on/off ramps, but the way it was designed certainly seems like a bone thrown to commuters. Whether that bone was for ODOT or just more local political concerns, receiving ODOT's approval seems like a huge deal for this project. I'd wager It's much more likely to actual happen with their backing, or even just their lack of opposition. I'm glad to have it, and hopeful that this makes it to the finish line.

The question isn't whether or not Burke has value, of course it does! Everything has pros and cons. The correct question is whether a (mostly) private airport is the most valuable usage of 400+ acres of (near) downtown lakefront property, and 2-3 miles of lakeshore. It's possible to make that argument, but I don't find it compelling. I'd argue instead that the reason Burke is such an outlier in @BoomerangCleRes list is that other cities have correctly concluded that there are more valuable uses for land that close to the city center.

I'd rather have the public money come from the state instead of the city/county, since they are drawing from a much larger fund, but the central objection still remains. I'm not sure it's the best use of taxpayer dollars. If the state wants to give 200+ million for a project in Cleveland I'd rather have it go to the landbridge. I'm unfortunately inclined to agree with the debbie downers above that this whole lakefront project becomes much less likely to happen if the Browns leave, but entirely for political reasons. If the money the State is apparently willing to offer the Haslams is instead directed to the landbridge and adjacent development, most of the funding gap would disappear overnight. I can't think of a compelling argument how that wouldn't be a more responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

Do you mean MLK? Regardless, I don't think there's a realistic chance of this happening.

Maybe it's the same news?

What is the rationale for bollards? I can't see how a DORA necessitates bollards. The street either needs boards or it doesn't, I don't see what difference a DORA makes. What am I missing?

There's a part of me that thinks the truly rock'n'roll thing to do would be to bump that height up another 6'. That would be an excellent touch of performative trangressiveness that I'd expect from a rock themed casino.

First of all bravo! To these volunteers. They are doing God's work. But second of all, immediately fire everyone who works for the city in parks and rec. I'm serious. Three absolutely scandalous paragraphs from the article. (Emphasis mine). " “If we want to go outdoors and do some cleaning and plant some flowers, no union person would do that anyway,” he said. "Bonnie Perry, president of AFSCME Local 100, which represents Cleveland workers, said in an email that the local “often works closely with park volunteers to promote our city and region’s beautiful parks and green spaces. When there are questions about job titles or job responsibilities assigned to union positions, AFSCME Local 100 addresses those issues with the City of Cleveland.” "Perrin Verzi, who manages the Rockefeller Park Greenhouse, said her volunteers do chores that her staff wouldn’t, such as tending the gardens and fish tanks. " To be clear, I'm fully serious. These people aren't doing there jobs, so they shouldn't have them. Clean house! Get the current employees out and hire some people who want to work. Maybe some of the volunteers would prefer to be paid for their work. If not, I'm sure there are some recent immigrants willing to get their hands dirty.