Ethan

I don't exactly disagree, there's almost certainly a better spot, but as a counterpoint, it's kind of cool having small attractions scattered around downtown. It gives a reason to walk around and explore a bit. Not that this is very far, it's one block from Public Square and the malls, but still, it's something. On the crowding point. The area it will be set in looks to be about a quarter of an acre, not huge by any means, but the Trevi Fountain is in a half acre space, and that's including the roads and fountain itself. If you exclude those it's a pretty similar amount of space. This won't get anywhere near that interest. Maybe the solution is to have far more public art, so we aren't so concerned with finding the exact best location for each piece. Mall C isn't a bad location, my only concern with it is that it's also the only significant patch of flat grass anywhere downtown. (Mall B has to deal with the convention center). It's prime location for tossing a ball around or something. Some festivals go there, etc. Not saying your idea would be a worse use of the space, just that there are some tradeoffs. Personally I'd opt for a similar location, but slightly further north, placing it elevated in the gap in the proposed Land bridge to hopefully give it the illusion of flying. I also replied to your original post where I expressed my thoughts in a bit more depth. https://urbanohio.com/topic/246-cleveland-global-center-for-health-innovation-amp-convention-center/?do=findComment&comment=1138515

To Segway back to Cleveland, live music is a hell of a drug. Being able to reliably jump into a bar and find someone playing music can make up for a lot of subpar urban form. That's one thing I think Cleveland is lacking in, which is unfortunate given that (similar to Nashville) we have a music hall of fame. Nashville, Austin, and New Orleans really punch above their weight in that regard, they are mid sized cities with big city entertainment, I'd love for Cleveland to join those ranks. Getting there will likely require leadership from invested and civic partners like the Rock Hall and Playhouse Square. I'm hopeful that music is a part of the plan for the Greyhound terminal, and I got the impression it likely is, so hopefully that is starting to turn around again. The Rock Hall's expansion should help as well, hopefully after it's completed they can spread their influence into the city a bit more. Not that I think any of this is likely, but I'd love to see it!

I understand the thinking, but I'm not sure if I would want a public Kayak launch built or operated by Bedrock. Instead I'd rather see them transfer (gift) that plot to the public agency that will be responsible for managing it, and since I'd like it to be nice, I'd like that agency to be the Metroparks.

Jazz club in the Greyhound terminal, Lumen II on the City owned lots at Chester and 13th. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Pretty good shot of progress on Public Square.

Just from shopping there a few times, I'd say well. I haven't seen the data, but just anecdotally, I'd say it's succeeding.

We're talking past each, therefore I don't think further dialogue will be productive. Of course one would expect there to be a correlation between adding new housing units and population growth. But it's not 1 to 1, and I was explaining one of the reasons why. And just as a general statement, if you're able to pick and choose your data points you can find any correlation you like. Census counts people (however imperfectly), everything in between is an estimate. (For that matter I wouldn't be surprised if new housing units added is an input for that estimate, but I don't know and it ultimately doesn't matter for this conversation).

Long term discontent explained in graphs.

I wasn't talking about for those projects. Most people in this neighborhood still live in houses/duplexes etc. I'm just talking about the normal turnover of houses, new family moving in etc. I'm suggesting that the new families moving in are smaller. I'm further suggesting that the same trends causing apartments to be built are exacerbating what is basically a nationwide trend. and the data does support this. It's up thread. Housing units are increasing but population is decreasing. That basically means, almost by definition, that there are fewer people per housing unit, which is exactly the phenomenon I'm describing.

I don't disagree, it's definitely a hot neighborhood. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on it growing. I was using it as an example. To expand upon the point I was making, unfortunately, some of the same "hot" neighborhood trends that cause new apartments to be built can cause duplex to single home conversions, or young single people moving in and pushing out established larger families. These developments are smaller and less noticeable, but can make a large difference in the aggregate. All that said, I agree, Detroit Shoreway will likely show growth on the next census. The positive density trends have likely eclipsed the negative ones at this point.

Great post! Weighing costs and benefits is always important! The one caveat I'd make is that there's a difference between having parking options, and subsidizing those parking options. I would prefer privately owned and operated parking garages, but if the city decides to build and operate them, then they should run them like a private business would, with aim to make a profit. At the very least parking aught to be priced to pay back the cost of construction (with interest) and maintenance (and making money on it would be even better). If the city is making money (or at least not losing it) the upfront cost is less of an issue, but obviously there's still opportunity cost, the city only has so much capital to use at any one time. I'd definitely prefer privately owned and operated though, I think that would be better for everyone for all the reasons you listed.

Hate for parking garages seems misplaced, or at least not strategic. The business model of most parking garages (increasing to the daily max quickly) incentives people to park once and then leave their care there for the day. That isn't really bad or incompatible with urban development, if perhaps imperfect. Plus, they consolidate parking, reducing the total land used for parking. Additionally, most people using parking garages aren't local, they are coming from somewhere else to inject money into the local economy. Parking garages are perhaps not optimal, but they seem to me to be at worst an enemy of my enemy situation (with surface lots being the greater enemy).

Most of Cleveland's population is and has been in the parts of Cleveland that feel more like an inner ring suburb than a big city. It's hard to offset the nationwide trend towards more living space per person with growth only in a few hot areas. Houses that a one point housed a family of five or more are now considered too small to raise any size of family in, and certainly too small for a large family.

Yeah, I think a lot of men don't realize just how much gender factors into safety calculations and just how different women's experiences can be in this regard. With that in mind, here's a hot take I saw a while ago on Twitter that I think you will appreciate, not sure about everyone else, but that's what hot takes are for.

I understand Bedrock owns it, but I'm pretty sure they owned it when they made their last iteration of graphics, but opted not to show it. It probably doesn't mean anything, but I assume it was an intentional decision both times, so it's at least a little interesting. I didn't realize they controlled the plot on the other side of West third. It looks like it transferred to Starling Stone LLC in July of last year. I'm guessing that's one of their shell companies? Edit: I also wonder if they meant to imply that that parcel is part of phase 1a, as the one graphic sort of suggests... Probably not, but could make for some fun speculation.

Am I crazy or has bedrock's project area expanded? The massing on W3rd looks new. It also looks like they've laid claim to a plot south of Columbus that has previously been shown as a future part of Canal Basin Park (though it's still shown as green space).

Probably, but more housing units doesn't necessarily mean more people. Detroit Shoreway gained units from 2010-2020, but it wasn't enough to offset shrinking families. Similar story for a couple of other neighborhoods. Not saying we'll see more of that, just that housing units don't tell the whole story.

The main reason I'd like to see fare collection and enforcement on RTA trains is to restrict usage as much as possible to people actually using the trains for transit. The mentally unwell deserve compassion, but also do a lot to depress demand. People need to feel safe and comfortable to use transit. Safety isn't the same as the perception of safety, and It's also a good reminder that almost everyone on this forum is male, but half of the general population is female. There's a lot of people who won't use transit again (unless they have to) if their first experience involves a crazy person.

That's a fair point, but those buildings are ugly and depressing because of brutalism more so than the color pallette. When I think of Paris or Rome, the color pallette is muted, but because the architecture is classical in style, it's beautiful. Some cities such as Tel Aviv or those on Santorini are nearly all white and gorgeous. A reserved or simple color scheme pairs well with beautiful buildings that have detail and beauty waiting to reveal itself on closer inspection. The YouTube channel "The Aesthetic City" has some phenomenal videos on reviving classical architecture in the modern era. I highly recommend basically all of their videos. I like your point about city wide color pallets. When cities look good there is some agreement on colors. And it may not be in the standard sense, some cities like Murano, or the Nordic ones you highlighted, use almost every color, but stick to a similar vibrancy of color. That can work, as can an all white city, or a stone colored city, but some form of consistency goes a long way. Bringing it back to Cleveland, I'd personally love it if the look of the Terminal Tower / Landmark building (Which is to say Art Deco) ran throughout downtown. That isn't going to happen, but it would be nice if the bedrock development treated it's new builds as a sort of Tower City District, sort of like Rockefeller Center in Manhattan. That would make me very happy.

I'd take any and all studies on happiness with a grain of salt, many of those same countries have high suicide rates (at least relative to their European peers). For that matter, many gorgeous European cities utilize a more muted color pallet. I personally kind of like the more reserved color pallet of Cleveland's downtown. When the materials creating that color pallet are nice it can create a stately, or even gothic effect. I think at least some parts of Cleveland manage to create that. Not that I have anything against color, just saying that a reserved color pallet can be done well. I moved this to the random thread as I realized I wasn't really on topic for the thread. Most structures going in to Tremont aren't built with the kind of materials (stone for instance) that can justify a more stately, reserved facade. I don't have an argument against utilizing bold color in basic wood/steel framed structures.

Jokes aside, I could see demand for basically every type of mixed use demand at the brook park site, except for residential. The proximity to the airport might allow it to support a hotel. Retail can be done (almost) anywhere with a quality anchor tenant and a good setup. Certain travel heavy businesses might prize proximity to the airport enough to put an office at the brook park site (or a small satellite office for a larger company). But without significant build up first, I don't see the demand for residential, airport proximity (past a certain point) is generally a negative for residential, noise and traffic aren't exactly selling points. Some people really travel a lot, but at the point where you're traveling enough that walking distance to the airport is a selling point you don't really live anywhere. Maybe business people who work/live in a different city (fly in/out every weekend) might appreciate it, or people who work at the airport, but on the whole I'd think the demand for residential would be very weak. (Edit: I agree with the above, I could absolutely see an extended stay hotel) I basically see the brook park development as an airport development with a stadium. The airport operates every day, the stadium maybe 20 days a year. The stadium will be icing on the cake, and may push some things over the edge, but fundamentally the airport will determine what makes sense and what doesn't.

Agreed, but count me in the group of pedestrians walking in the median. Seems logical to me, it inconveniences no one, and makes it easier for me to get where I'm going. I don't see why it should be frowned upon.

That would be my guess, but maybe there's some connection with the discussion happening in the hotel discussion thread...🤔

This seems like great news! No developer is going to be more invested in doing right by this area, and by extension this building, than Playhouse Square Foundation. This gives me hope that we will see something fantastic here! I also can't imagine Playhouse Square removing that gorgeous and historic facade. My only question is how quickly they'll be able to move. Regardless I'm excited!

I agree with all of the above that Cleveland is unlikely to get a super bowl for all of the above reasons. One on topic caveat, I could see a domed stadium near downtown ameliorating the hotel situation slightly. I don't think a dome is necessary, but the few extra large events it brings in might be the difference for making the math work on a new downtown hotel or two. Will that in and of itself be enough to make us super bowl viable? Probably not, just thought it was worth mentioning.