Ethan

Minor update for CHEERS. I hadn't seen phase 1 specified yet, so I'm assuming others haven't yet. It looks like you might be able to visit a portion of the park north of the Marina by 2031/2032.

My bad, read too quickly.

When was that plan/proposal made?. Must be pre 1968. An estimated cost of 1 billion back then would be about 10 billion or more today depending on the precise year. Unfortunately it would almost certainly be even more than that today with our inability to build things. That would make for a pretty comprehensive system though.

Cleveland Heights City Council is considering a DORA for the Cedar Lee district. https://myemail-api.constantcontact.com/Cleveland-Heights-City-News-Friday--April-19--2024.html?soid=1115396448413&aid=50ymjuRHXXQ

I understand your perspective, but my main question is worth what wait? If I could know for sure that waiting 2 years could get us a better building at this location, I'd probably say sure, let's wait it out. If however, in my omniscient hypothetical, I could know it would be a 10 year wait I'd opt to build it. I fully understand and agree with you that there are a lot of reasons that we should be optimistic that this lot would get built on even if this developer is denied. (Which, by the way, is probably why it didn't win a TMUD). That said, there are a lot of promising developments that have fallen through, or parking lots that have remained temporary far longer than their locations would seem to justify. Given what we've seen in only the past few years (NuCleus, etc) I can't share your confidence that this lot would definitely get built on quickly. It might, maybe it's even more likely than not, but it might remain a temporary paying lot for a long time. Personally, I'd rather not take that risk. (I also just don't find the building as ugly as so many on this forum do). If, on the other hand, we build an imperfect building we add density to the area, which will supercharge this corner in a much needed way. That will only lead to more development. It's also possible that by holding off on this development now, we don't get as much outgrowth development in the surrounding area. It's hard to grow and densify without allowing sub-optimal buildings to get built.

I'm wondering if it's worth it for the city/county to independently appraise the cost of renovating the current stadium. I just don't think there's any reasonable way it would/should actually cost 1.2 billion. I hope the city/county stick to their initially rumored position and cap their support at 300 million regardless of what the Haslams decide to do. The City obviously should not give a cent if it won't be in Cleveland. I'm less concerned about State money since it's a smaller chunk of the pie, but I still don't want to see the State giving out a billion dollars of tax payer money for a stadium when we have one already. If the state wants to give the City 1.2 billion dollars, I could probably come up with about 100 better uses for those funds. The City's position should be a minor renovation to the existing stadium. I'm reasonably confident that the minimally necessary renovation can be done for half or less than what the Haslams are suggesting. Do a minor renovation extend the life another 15-20 years and after that maybe we can talk about a more significant renovation or a new stadium. There needs to be more concern about value here. If the Haslams had to spend all their own money there would be. Public funds should be valued just as highly. Edit: an interesting way to conceptualize 1.2 billion dollars is that divided by the ~12 million people in Ohio that's $100 per person. When you consider many of those people aren't taxpayers (old, young) the amount per taxpayer is probably closer to $200 than $100. Not a trivial sum for most people, most of whom will never go to a Brown's game. Personally I'd take the check.

My question for anyone unsatisfied with the design is how long are you willing to wait for a better design? The land is currently fallow. There's a good chance that if this isn't built nothing will be built for several years. Is it worth passing on a "mediocre" design if it means the land will stay a parking lot for the next five, ten, fifteen, twenty, forty years? What is the exchange rate? Is any length of time worth it, or is there a length of time for which waiting for a more optimal design ceases to be worth it?

But what if the hotel is next to the Stadium across from the airport in a small mixed use development? -- How is renovating the existing stadium going to cost 1.2 billion? That is an absurd number. I have to assume that's inflated. -- Assuming we are looking at paying half regardless, then I'm fully in favor of keeping it on the lakefront. Saving at least 600 million in public dollars is a no brainer. Personally I think it might be even more, as I see no reason for a stadium renovation to cost 1.2 billion. Hopefully the city, country, and even the state, negotiate to keep public funds investment low. We have a functional stadium. No reason to spend over a billion tax payer dollars for a new stadium when the old one works just fine.

I'm far more ambivalent to whether the Intercity station goes on the lakefront or the riverfront than most of the people on this forum. My main hesitation for the CUT option is that we already have a bit of momentum for a lakefront station, and I don't want to start back at the beginning. That said, my personal recommendation if the intent is to sell the powers that be on the CUT option would be to mock your 2D schematic up in 3 dimensions. Last time this came up I was skeptical that this would actually work in 3 dimensions (the entrance to the viaduct and crossing over the waterfront line that is). I'll take you at your word that it does, but I can't imagine I'm the only person having that thought, or similar doubts. I know we have some forumers with access to and ability to use 3D CAD. I won't volunteer anyone, but if one of them is willing to help you out with some renderings (not a small chunk of time) it would go a long way to convincing detractors that this is a viable solution. Place those renderings in a professional looking graphic with arguments towards why it's the superior solution and I think that's the best solution. If I'm honest I think the station is going to go on the lakefront regardless based on everything I've seen or read (which is one of the reasons I'm fairly ambivalent) but the above is just a good faith suggestion of what I think is necessary to give a return to CUT it's best possible shot.

I don't disagree, but on the other hand, Cleveland has way more rail than most American cities of its size. Good bones and potential can make for an interesting place for a rail conference. I think you could make the argument that Cleveland is one of the best mid-sized city candidates. And maybe it will motivate RTA to do the bare minimum like getting the waterfront line up and running.

The Brownhoist is a Budding Home for Cleveland Creatives The historic building is changing its tune to bring new artistic collaborations and event programming to the city. By Annie Nickolof https://clevelandmagazine.com/entertainment/music/articles/the-brownhoist-is-a-budding-home-for-cleveland-creatives -- I've been here many times since it was acquired by the new owner (very friendly guy btw, always happy to give a tour). The space is very cool! Worth a visit! I've sometimes wondered how they actually make enough money, but I'm glad they seem to be figuring it out! Hopefully this building can serve as a anchor for the revitalization of this area, it could use it. I'd also love to see the basement speakeasy fully figured out, I don't believe it has regular hours just yet, though I could be wrong.

Agreed, the "flag rules" are treated as rules when they should be treated as guidelines. In my personal opinion, the best flags usually break one of these supposed rules (though bad flags generally break most of them). Breaking one rule in a smart manner is helpful to looking unique and interesting, disregarding them entirely pretty much always results in a messy, nondescript flag. Far too many of these newly designed flags look basically the same. As you put it, designed by the same ad agency. But it's not really their fault. If you rigidly follow every rule for good flag design I've ever seen, the aesthetic is basically ascribed by those same rules. Hence why I'd recommend picking one rule and tastefully breaking it. If anyone doesn't know what I'm taking about you can dive down the rabbit hole here, they link to design recommendations. https://www.cleflag.org/cleflag-submit-a-flag-design It may not be that limiting if you stick to only one set of flag rules, but once you start trying to make a flag that aligns with everyone's recommendations, you are effectively pigeon holed into one style, and that is the style we've been seeing a lot these last few years. (Not that it's bad, it's just getting repetitive). ------- The contrast between the City flag and the Ohio City flag is the best demonstration of why the Cleveland flag isn't a good flag. No one flies the City of Cleveland flag. The proof is in the pudding. It doesn't serve as a good symbol of the city. I'd bet a large majority of the city's residents can't even recognize the flag. @Enginerd is right on the money, they probably think it's the French flag. I had no idea what it was the first time I saw it and had to look it up.

I'd have no objections to using ARPA money to bury power lines. I'm not sure that should be our top priority, but it seems like a good use of funds, particularly anywhere the street has to be worked on anyway.

Interesting, seems like they've done a bit of a rebranding with this competition. Previously they tried to get traction with their own designs. It looks like they've scrubbed all references to those designs to not distract from the competition, but they can still be found here if anyone's curious. https://www.clevelandflag.com/cleveland-flag-design Edit: I like 11, 13, 16, 19, and the alternate color for 9. I'm guessing someone will submit all of their original submissions, I'd be interested to hear what other people's thoughts are, but maybe this should get its own thread?

CSU's campus currently gives the impression of a sharp line at E17th. Downtown ends and CSU begins. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing, but it does create confusion on how to market it. I think CSU would benefit a lot if downtown North and South of it felt as healthy as Downtown west of it feels. That way it would feel like a campus within downtown instead of a campus on the edge of downtown. That's a bit outside their control, but they could opt to build with more urban form particularly on the edges of their campus to encourage mutually beneficial development. They could also involve themselves more directly in supporting nearby neighborhoods such as the Superior Arts District. Few would benefit more from its success than CSU. Perhaps they're already doing that, I'm not sure. Looking at the proposed Master Plan, I'm not sure if they're really following that idea, but they are locating a lot of new housing on the north of the campus. Perhaps that will spur some development along Payne/Superior. Not sure, but the more CSU can surround itself with healthy urban space the better off it will be.

Interesting, well-written letter in the free newspaper. It's somewhat counter-narrative, but it was well constructed so I figured I'd share.

Following up on this conversation. I noticed that the Metroparks app now shows the grain craft land as Metroparks property. I decided to have a look at just how much of Columbus Peninsula is owned by the Metroparks, other government agencies, or partner organizations. That led me to the below sketch. Dark green is the Metro Parks light green is partner organizations or other government property. Orange are streets that could be closed in a future where the Metroparks decides to consolidate its parcels. Red are what I consider to be prime targets for acquisition. My guess is that the Metroparks won't pull the trigger on an expanded Rivergate Park until and unless they can secure those parcels from Fall Street and BSI. Otherwise they'd just increase the value of those plots and make them harder to secure. Some notes: (1) there was some discrepancy on some parcels between the GIS and Metroparks app for who owns certain parcels, the City or the Metroparks, not consequential either way. (2) I'm not suggesting all roads in orange should be closed, access to Cleveland Rowing Foundation needs to be maintained for instance, but closing some or even most of these is obviously necessary if this does become a larger park someday. (3) Also Rivergate Park is currently kinda lame, it needs a bit of a shot in the arm even if it doesn't get expanded. I'm assuming the Metroparks knows this.

Yes, the presenters mentioned caring about the view from public square. And their was also talk about what would be in the background and the ideal picture location.

Can Sherwin Williams extend their lease at the Landmark building? Operating out of both buildings would solve their problem, at least in the short term. Allow them time to get a new building built, and possibly even wait out interest rates if they decide to do that.

I live around there now, and I'd dispute that observation, but regardless. People are welcome to have their own opinion. For an objective measure, their rating on Google is 3.7 stars, which for a restaurant is pretty bad. It's 2.8 stars on Yelp, which is also bad. Objectively this restaurant has been poorly received.

The Cleveland Heights Haunted House Restaurant is horrendous. Totally awful. I sent my food back and left, I can't remember the last time I did that. You couldn't pay me to eat there again. Based on reviews I've seen, my experience was unfortunately not that unique. Themed restaurants are fun, but I wish they'd focus more on how the food tastes and less on how many different colors of food dye they can squeeze in. Hopefully they aren't making the same mistake with their new restaurant.

We do have the Christmas Story House, which seems to be in the vein of what you're suggesting. I think the creator's original house has received historical recognition, that would be a prime candidate for something similar. I believe it's just a private residence at the moment though.

Annoying as it all is, the implication of that video is that the city is starting to consider plans for the lakefront without a stadium. That's great news! The worst situation would be for the city to get blindsided by the Browns leaving. It sounds like they may be being proactive and making contingency plans for whatever the Browns decide. That's smart and worth the money.

I think the intended effect is to look like he just changed in the telephone booth and is flying away to wherever he is needed. From that perspective it makes sense, but it doesn't leave much room for people to look at the front of the statue. I like the layout overall.

^ I think it's probably more accurate to think of this closure as an expansion of Star (US Bank) Plaza than as a road closure. That's in effect what it is. I can see the logic, the main problem with the plaza is that it's too small, and getting rid of this road will make it ~75% bigger, no small feat. Perhaps with its added size it can serve as the hub of the Playhouse Square district like it feels like it wants to be. A mini triangular town square.