Ethan

We do have some, such as the Mandels and their foundation. They've given a lot to the Cleveland MetroParks and Orchestra. https://mandelfoundation.org/home/areas-of-engagement/#5 https://mandelfoundation.org/2023/07/17/mandel-foundation-makes-three-grants-to-clevelands-lakefront-parks/ I'm not as familiar with the Haslams' philanthropy, and I don't think it's anywhere near as extensive, but you're welcome to judge for yourself. https://www.haslamgiving.org/who-we-are

I feel like I'm missing the why. Why are the Metroparks necessary? What's the benefit of using them as a middleman? I feel like I'm missing something obvious.

No one asked, but here's a quick napkin sketch of how I'd deal with the concerns from the E18th extension and Amtrak yard. I didn't dig into elevations or how much space is needed for the yard, so maybe this isn't actually possible, but anyway, here you go.

Thanks! If money grew on trees and the powers that be were set on this location, I'm sure it could be made to work, but it sounds like there are good reasons that this site isn't being considered by the people whose job it is to consider these things. Oh well, it was fun contemplating it. In case anyone else needs reminded (as I did) what the city's proposal for extending E18 was see below. With enough money you could probably build over the rail yard, but (I'm guessing) vacant land isn't hard enough to come by in Cleveland for that option to make economic sense. Edit: though I don't see why it couldn't just be moved east. Looks like there's plenty of space, but what do I know?

That's exactly what I was thinking! Other than adding possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in up front costs, it really gives both the city and Haslams' what they want. Personally I like the efficiency of the plan as that land isn't very useful for anything other than a stadium.

I took this as a joke (which I think is how you meant it?) Nevertheless, I was kind of curious, about this probably too expensive solution. It doesn't work at the start of the muni lot, but if you push it east (~E20) until after the shoreway curves you could have a somewhat practical stadium placement without even capping the shoreway, and it's almost entirely unoccupied land.

I'm fairly ambivalent on if the Browns play in their current location or Brook Park. It was kind of cool having all three major teams playing downtown, but that land has potential to be used for something (several options) even more cool. My biggest concern is that the Haslam's / Browns were a major private force pushing for the land bridge. What they've already done has been massive, will the project be able to get to the finish line without the Haslam's lending their influence to the project? It shouldn't matter, but regardless, I'd say that if the Browns aren't staying at the lake, the odds of the land bridge actually getting built only decrease. Similarly, while the land the stadium is sitting on has a lot of potential, there's also the all too real possibility that potential doesn't get realized anytime soon. A stadium isn't the best use of lakefront land, but it's better than it being desolate. I'm optimistic, but the worst case scenario shouldn't be ignored. That said, we don't know if the Browns are moving or not. Regardless of where they play (provided they stay in NEO) I'm hoping the City makes the best use of whatever Lakefront land is available, and public funds are kept to a realistic minimum. At the end of the day I think the impact of where the stadium is located is exaggerated (in both directions). I think the City can make lemonade out of any option the Brown's choose with good leadership and wise decision making.

^ Regardless, MLS attendance is quite a bit higher than NWSL attendance. More than double on average. The NWSL average attendance is pretty comparable to what the Monsters get in terms of attendance, but more than most minor leagues. (Fwiw, average MLS attendance is higher than average NBA attendance, due to stadium capacity). https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2023-mls-attendance/ https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2023-nwsl-attendance/ This seems like a lot of money for the level of draw. Though maybe just reframing the stadium debate outside of the big 4 is giving me fresh perspective. We could basically have this stadium or the land bridge. I'll take the land bridge. (Obviously it's not actually that simple) Alternatively, the amount of new bike trails we could build with $150m is a lot. So many alternative uses, and unlike with the big 4, there isn't any big city credentials for housing a NWSL team. idk, unless this stadium is going to be used for more than just NWSL games it doesn't seem worth building to me. Just my opinion.

Not doubting you, but where did you get this information?

I'm not sure we really disagree at all. The study's value stems from it's methodology. It being not as robust as it could have been means it's finding are less strong than they could be. More uncertainty, larger error bars, etc. Unless the study was clearly conducted on outlier days (eg bad weather all three days) I still think the results are useful, just more uncertain than they would otherwise be. (Eg +/- 30% instead of +/- 10%). The only way it's perhaps disingenuous, is that the people presenting the study don't go into the nuances and limitations of the study. That's arguably disingenuous, but that problem is pervasive through basically all journalism about scientific articles and studies. As much as I'd like to see that societal change, I'm not holding my breath. Personally, after reading the study, I'd take the results with a grain of salt, but it's still the best information we have. And since it tends to agree with the experiences of people on this forum (including my own), I tend to think it's basically correct despite the small sample size (but that's just a feeling). Obviously it would be much better if it were conducted over 6 days instead of 3, and 12 would be even better, but there's tradeoffs in money and time.

Does anyone have any knowledge or well-informed estimates on when the Raise East Side Trails (including Slavic Village Connector) will actually be completed? I know they're still in the planning phases (and hopefully nearing the end), but I haven't been able to find any kind of timeline yet. I'm not expecting anytime soon; I'm just curious.

(Fair warning this is basically a collection of hot takes from a very much non-expert, take it with a grain of salt). Good post, but I disagree with your ordering. If we aren't considering cost, than I'd put rail down Euclid as priority 1 by a wide margin. Honestly, a downtown loop probably wouldn't even make my list. I'm open to being convinced, but I don't think it would be particularly useful, at least not with downtown as it currently is. It would add basically one useful stop not served by the new Euclid line or existing lines, that being in the 9-12 district. And even that area isn't all that far from existing waterfront line stops. Not to mention there's a free trolley that basically does this route, maybe it's busy during rush hour, but it's nearly empty whenever I've looked. As I said, I could be convinced on the downtown loop, but the central issue (as I see it anyway) is that downtown just isn't that big (what people think of as downtown, not it's official boundaries). I've yet to see a routing that makes sense to me beyond just doing it for the sake of doing it. The loop is either too narrow, making the stops too close together, or too wide, missing the active areas of downtown. I'd be happy to have it, but I'd take several other routes first. Furthermore, I'm not even sure it's the best possible extension of the waterfront line. As an example, following the existing freight tracks (which I don't think is possible, just an example), picks up Asiatown and Midtown, while then connecting to every rail line Cleveland has (red/blue/green). It could also connect with a Euclid Ave line. It would bring transit to two areas that aught to be hotter than they are, in addition to making tons of connections. I'd take that over a downtown loop. Things I'd put above a downtown loop: - Blue line realignment towards university circle - W25th rail option - If it wasn't assumed by rail down Euclid--rail down Detroit till it intersects with the red line again - A red line branch into Lakewood (could use existing, possibly soon to be vacated, tracks). - probably cheating but I'm including it since it would probably make a bigger difference than all of the above--greater frequency on existing rail lines.

These developments seem nice, I just hope every effort is made to preserve the trees which are not directly in the building path. Might be a good opportunity for the new forestry department to flex their muscles. It would be a shame if this hill became barren or nearly treeless. The documents given to planning commission show the trees as preserved, I just hope reality doesn't deviate from that.

So to answer your question, it looks like it was conducted over one weekend and the following Tuesday. I don't think that invalidates the study, provided those days were reasonably representative of average days, it just needs to be taken for what it is. After quickly glancing through the study, the main takeaways to me is that people are staying well beyond the limited time, and that only a few short sections of Lorain really fill up from a parking perspective, which unsurprisingly line up with restaurants and bars. Thanks @dastlerfor the file!

Yeah, I'm not sure where the $1,000/month housing allowance is coming from, but even for a large company that's a good bit of money on a per employee basis. It's also at least 3x more expensive than just paying for parking downtown. Probably more like 4, 5, or even 6 times more expensive when you account for leasing in bulk. That's not even considering that it's 10x more than a monthly RTA pass. I'm fairly confident that Sherwin Williams would look at either of those two options long before they consider housing allowances.

Totally agree! My other concern is that they'll negotiate this to the point that it becomes inflexible. There might be one year where it makes sense to direct 70% of the money downtown due to a large project, but maybe the year after that it makes sense to direct the majority of the funds towards Hough for a different project. I just don't want arbitrary, neighborhood level, funding baskets to get in the way of appropriately prioritizing projects on their own merits. Projects should be evaluated on their own based on their benefit to the city, sorting by neighborhood first complicates things unnecessarily and is very unlikely to result in the most useful distribution of funds.

Council pushes back on TIF proposal. Wants to see more going to neighborhoods. https://www.crainscleveland.com/politics-policy/clevelands-tif-district-plan-hold-council-wants-changes#/ I can understand why they're doing this, they need to represent their constituents after all, but it seems like wrapping these funds up in more red tape and bureaucracy can't be a good thing. Guaranteeing 50% of these funds go to "every neighborhood, with special emphasis on our middle, edge and distressed neighborhoods" doesn't seem like a good idea to me, however well intentioned it might be.

Basically agree, but if they ever do close the square to traffic entirely there are two very logical statue locations where Superior enters Public Square. That would look great and have a lot of symmetry with the North South Statues. Not sure if a superman statue is the vibe they're going for, but that is another question. The medical mart is a weird location, agreed. But I don't like letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, so I say put them somewhere. The best location is absolutely the gap in the land bridge letting light in to the convention center. Put Superman flying in the air in the middle of this gap. Keep the support post as small as possible to maintain the illusion, it would look really cool. Edit: I'd use the third pose above flying East to West. I kind of like the stainless steel idea.

^ Agreed, I believe the planning committee suggested that to them during the planning process, Sherwin Williams shrugged it off. They also definitely suggested adding a couple more floors either above or below. If Sherwin Williams had taken either suggestion they would be in a better situation, and if they had taken both they'd have much clearer path to construct a second tower.

Is there any chance this deal could resuscitate itself? Perhaps when East Cleveland is run by a different set of incompetent leaders? I'm hoping this is more of an indefinitely on hold situation than a completely dead one, because, ridiculous incompetence of the city aside, it's still a good idea.

It looks like it was also finished a while ago, probably about two months ago, so it's not like they did it right after it finished. I agree, the timing is interesting. Maybe they were just waiting for a slow news day?

I'm mostly just being facetious. I'm just as confused as everyone else.

^ What I'm hearing is that the only logical conclusion is that they forgot the II after "the Lumen." 🤞😂

Cleveland is not a sanctuary city. https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States https://www.cleveland19.com/story/33726794/ohios-8-sanctuary-locations-and-what-it-means-for-immigration-matters/ https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigations/is-cleveland-a-sanctuary-city/95-359572160

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "basic architecture," but if I'm reading you correctly, I agree, traditional architecture is generally preferred by the vast majority of everyday people, who generally prefer "beautiful," as it has been traditionally understood, over "interesting" when it comes to building design. You might enjoy and agree with the video I posted above. It goes more in depth into these themes.