Ethan

In case anyone else was wondering where this is located. It looks like it will also come very close to another planned trail. So there's some nice synergy with existing and planned trails at least. 422 is in both maps and can be used for place marking. It looks like these two trails get within .25 to .3 miles of each other. Good place to prioritize improved cycling infrastructure.

My question since they announced their decision to go to Brook Park was if they were willing to back up that decision with their own money if various government entities told them pound sand, it appears the answer to that question is no...

I also think football should be played out in the elements, but if you thought a static domed stadium was expensive, wait till we see the estimate for a retractable roof...

I like the idea of playing hardball. If the State really does say no, it's worth reevaluating the deal given HSGs decreased leverage. The other way to play hardball is to lock in the Browns for a much longer period of time. I'm sick of sports teams threatening to leave every few decades so they can fleece the taxpayers. I'd love to remove that leverage for the next renegotiation. Not sure what the City and County's legal options are in that direction, but I'd be interested to see it explored.

Garfield Park is due for it's reservation plan update this year, so that will be interesting to see what is highlighted in that plan. The previous 2015 report does flag the upstream mill creek area as a target for land protection. Though there are also some very interesting prospects downstream, mostly if they are willing to go the Brighton Park route, as there is a lot of former landfill space along the creek that could be used to loop into Bacci Park where there is already an existing trail dead ending in this direction. In the below picture, most of the light green is former landfill space. It's hard to make former landfills into anything other than park land (and it's not exactly easy to do that either) so I wouldn't be at all surprised if this eventually ends up as a big loop. On the mill creek falls area specifically the report calls for "open views and reconfigure area", "Add restrooms, picnic area, and play area", and improving bike pedestrian connections funneling into park. With the exception of the last point, there hasn't been much progress on the other two, but I'm guessing they are aiming to acquire some more land, primarily the houses north of Berman to facilitate these goals. My expectation is that the 2025 reservation plan update will echo these same ideas, but perhaps with more specificity and a greater focus on the Mill Creek Falls area as the lower portion of the park has recently been substantially updated.

Whiskey Bar/Distillery opening up in the flats across from the Foundry near Brick and Barrel. River Roots Barrel company is moving (expanding?) from their current location on W121st for more space in what they see as an up and coming area. https://www.crainscleveland.com/retail/river-roots-barrel-co-prepares-expansion-flats Best of luck to them! Hopefully the apartments across the river will drive more foot traffic over here.

Got the big boy toys out.

Some cloudy views from across the river.

Nothing major in this months board meeting agenda, added 18 acres to Hinckley, and some forward movement on Irishtown Bend and grants for Cheers. All good things. Their real estate report is a nice review of their acquisitions from last year though. Also I didn't realize how comparably recent most of Mill Creek Falls is. Beautiful area, could definitely use some strategic depth though... With bike trail developments hopefully this area will get a bit more love.

I've seen this before, but it's not common. As far as I can tell, it's basically a sneaky way to raise prices that won't show up when googling the menu, etc. It seems like the lack of transparency is the point. I also have to imagine this reduces tipping, probably by about 2% on average. I don't see this taking off, it seems like a dishonest trick and it will annoy regulars. It's already hard to estimate the final bill in the US, I don't see restaurants that add another step to this process doing well unless they are basically just preying on tourists. Tldr; It seems dishonest, and I'd bet it's effectively a transfer from the service staff to the owners (via reduced tipping), I'm not a fan.

I think these are both fair comments. While I agree that an external sponsor of making tower city a true rail hub again would do wonders for Tower City and Cleveland as a whole, I also agree that laying the blame at the foot of the developer that has most strongly bet on the future of downtown Cleveland just isn't fair. As others have noted, if the city itself isn't willing to strongly embrace the concept of Tower City returning to its roots as a rail hub, it's not reasonable to expect an external actor to do so on its behalf. Sure, Bedrock owns Tower City, but they aren't going to do much of anything with regards to rail expansion without heavy involvement of the City and other governmental agencies. If the City doesn't want it to happen, it won't, and realistically, if the City is ambivalent about it (which I think it is), it's not going to happen either. To be sure Bedrock deserves some blame for not seeing the vision, and some actions that seem to block a CVSR extension, but I'd argue the principle actor at fault here is still the City. If the City wants to extend CVSR they need to take the lead. Study and determine a preferred right of way, then don't allow any building that will jeopardize that right of way. If a developer (even Bedrock) wants to obstruct that right of way, don't allow it. The City (and Bedrock) still probably have a chance here, as at least one potential right of way for CVSR runs under the Eagle ave extension. Unless a different route is determined to be preferable the City should ensure this bridge is conducted in such a way so as to leave room for a rail right of way underneath it. Will Bedrock object? Maybe, but it's ultimately the City's job to stand up for its own interest, not the developer. If Bedrock objects the City should tell them to come up with an alternative routing that brings CVSR closer to downtown than their preferred location. Bedrock's not a charitable organization, it will stand up for what it sees as its own interest. I think they are wrong when it comes to CVSR and they might as well reach out to Brightline, and they would benefit from their involvement as Ken suggests. But ultimately the City has the primary responsibility to stand up for Cleveland's best interest, and to the extent they aren't doing that they should bare primary responsibility.

In general the history of food production has been increasing yield and productivity. Greenhouses in particular have seen a lot of growth and technological advancements in recent years. They can grow more food in less space. Less space means they can be located closer to urban areas, or at least less dispersed even if they are in a remote location (the greenhouses at Almeria produce a large amount of EUs fruit and veg for example). Farming near urban areas really only makes sense if it is high yield farming, greenhouses are a good way to get enough return to justify higher taxes. Another solution that has been perhaps overhyped in recent years is indoor/vertical farming generally paired with hydroponics. While it hasn't delivered as quickly as promised, it still has tremendous potential for more urban environments. Stacking growth and controlling the atmosphere/light, environment etc has a lot of potential to justify high urban rents. Companies could justify higher prices with premium freshness, i.e. organic, picked today. I could imagine a grocery store where the upper levels are for vertical farming. Moving farming indoors is really the secret sauce with the capability of making urban farming feasible, but it's still a hard economic and technological problem that hasn't quite been solved yet. Still lots of progress is being made driven by arid middle eastern countries and the marijuana industry. Many (though not all) food desserts are in areas where rents and land values are relatively depressed. They are also often blighted with plenty of available land for purchase. These areas could make great targets for experiments in urban farming.

Ronayne laid out three options from HSG in his talk, Brook Park with county money, BP without county money, and downtown. At this point it sounds like the county is about as firm a no on giving money to the BP site as possible. Assuming that's correct, it sounds like we're down to two options, downtown, or BP with no county support. So now the question is which of those two options we will get? Are the Haslams Willing to risk more of their own money for their preferred isolated site? Or will they buckle and concede to staying downtown? Maybe they'll find a way to get the money elsewhere, idk. At any rate, I'm glad that at least my local tax dollars aren't going to support what doesn't seem to be a very well thought out plan.

^ There's a lot of space left on this peninsula, once a population is established I'm sure the next development will opt for retail. Plus, nothing is permanent. If demand for retail is strong enough then when these buildings are due for a major renovation in a few decades it can be added. We have to start somewhere, plus as others have mentioned there's a public element in this with the boardwalk. Retail will come as long as development persists.

I'm not sure why you are so confident about that... Traditionally voters are more likely to cross part lines in governor elections than senate elections, and there are plenty of reasons to think that the 2026 midterm elections will be a favorable environment for Democrats, so Sherrod has a lot going for him. But he lost to Bernie Moreno last year, and while abrasive is probably a fair description, Vivek is coming in with a lot of name recognition, and I think he's clearly a stronger candidate that Bernie. Kalshi has the odds of a Republican winning the Ohio governorship at 74%, and I have to imagine the traders are pricing in the Republican frontrunner into their decisions. As a secondary check, I asked an AI, and it put the odds for a head to head matchup at 60-40 in Vivek's favor, I'd take that with a grain of salt, as I would the bettings odds, and polls, but I just don't see much reason to conclude Sherrod would win easily. Good chance, absolutely, favorite, maybe, but winning easily seems pretty unlikely to me.

Wow! As a citizen of Cuyahoga county that cares deeply about sound fiscal policy, I loved every second of that! While I didn't think he ever said it quite so concisely, I heard a firm no on any county support for a Brook park stadium.

I still wish they would have opted for a layout closer to the one proposed by the great and powerful @NorthShore647 Leaning in to this being next to the airport just make sense, make this a transit hub, build a bridge to the airport and an infill redline stop and there's a real chance that this could not be a ghost town during non game days. The mixed use area could have gotten traffic from long layover travelers, or just people arriving early to the airport, and adding a red line I fill stop would have given this place Van Aken like potential. While it seems silly to focus on what the plan is not, even if the stadium location is set, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility for public officials to use their influence to move the mixed use district to face the airport, particularly if the local municipalities are willing to invest in the necessary infrastructure, such as a pedestrian bridge and infill station. If we have to this stadium location, I'd rather have it done intelligently in a way that plays into its assets and attempts to integrate into the broader regional transit system. If, as many have proposed, this is really all about parking, then if course this is exactly what HSG doesn't want. I understand that, but it's a shame, and I'd like to see them change course.

For what it's worth, I actually fully agree with this sentiment, in the abstract, but I stand behind what I said in this particular instance. I don't think the street grid is doing this area any favors, and there's maybe one building between French and Center worth saving.

The sad/silly part of all of this is that this property would almost certainly be worth more if the buildings were demolished... Not that I'm rooting for that, we've all seen what happens with temporary parking lots, the other side of this street being a good demonstration, but a clear lot here, possibly combined with other underused parcels between Columbus Rd and the RTA viaduct, would be a prime development opportunity. As it is, it's only a good opportunity, and I hope a serious developer snatches it up, but it's hamstrung by poorly maintained buildings old enough to be historic, and weirdly cut up plots and a street layout that no longer makes sense.

This is the average lifetime births per woman. In order for a society to sustain itself the average woman must have 2.1 children (the .1 accounts for illness, defects, etc). If the average woman has fewer children than this the total population for the society will shrink exponentially depending on how far below the replacement rate they are. South Korea has a birth rate so low that by the time they reach the great grandchildren of the current generation they will have about 4% of their current population. At a certain point this is an existential crisis, it puts tremendous stress on retirement services (more old people than working) and de-densifies the country. The problem with immigration as a solution is that it appears to be unsustainable in that it doesn't actually solve the problem, and it seems to exacerbate many of the problems that create low birthrates in the first place. Certainly the economic ones. Every country that has tried the high immigration strategy has either depressed their birth rate further (certainly in the non immigrant population), or made no difference. It creates a loop where more and more immigrants are needed just to sustain the population; it's not a sustainable solution, and everywhere it's been tried it has moved the country towards the far right of the political spectrum. We need a real solution that recognizes low birth rates are the problem, not the declining population. Something is wrong if people aren't having children, whether it's their choice or an economic issue there is a problem in the future or economy that needs addressed. If not the society will wither and die. As has happened to many societies before. Realistically, I think the solution needs to come from both a cultural shift, and from government promotion of strong families. That means we have to make marriage and having children cool again. We need big families to be viewed as a sign of success. The rich aught to be having 5+ kids. It aught to be viewed as a duty to bring the children you can afford into this world. To the extent the issue is actually affording children the government should help out where they can, the problem is that children are expensive, and while government can soften their burden, there's no way the government can subsidize children enough to change that fact. Meaningful subsidies for child rearing would be untenably expensive, perhaps we could do so at the expense of other social welfare programs, but at a certain point it starts to seem like you are punishing the childless. Which seems ethically dubious given how many childless people wanted to have children and found they couldn't for one reason or another. That's a whole another angle to this issue, physically people are on average less fertile than they used to be, at least that has been the trend as far back as we have data. Lots of hypothesis have been suggested that I've seen, micro plastics, obesity, etc, but there isn't a consensus on the cause. The point is that it's a multifaceted problem and anyone who says it's as simple as subsidizing raising children or bringing in more immigrants is oversimplifying the problem. You simply can't meaningfully address this issue without addressing culture, economics, and health.

Exactly, many of the reasons for people having fewer children are cultural, not economic. If anything as societies get wealthier they tend to have fewer children. I do think economics matter, and I do think there's a proper role for the government to incentivize raising children (tax credits etc). That said, most of the analysis I have seen suggest that government interventions that have been tried have either no or minimal effect (<0.3) on the total fertility rate, and in some cases the effect is temporary. Many cultural trends that most people on this forum would view as a positive probably depress fertility. The real elephant in the room one, at least on this forum, is urbanization... ( https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/10653IIED.pdf ) Urbanization is inversely correlated with fertility. I don't think that need be the case, and I think there are ways to mitigate that (see the podcast I posted in gentle density thread), but it's a problem. While it does sound trite, I actually think cultural elites having more children and encouraging others to do the same might have more of an impact than any governmental program.

Sure, and replaced with nothing or surface parking lots it would be a major loss! That said, you could basically fit every establishment on the East Bank of the flats into the area currently devoted to the stadium. It's a lot of land with a lot of potential! I'd love to see the downtown lakefront vision expanded to include the land currently occupied by the stadium. With the stadium out of the way you could add several 7 over 1s, maybe a museum, a tower or two, etc, lots of possibilities! Basically any layout will get more annual usage/activity than the stadium. If the stadium does move to Brook Park (looking more likely) the land freed up by the current stadium is definitely a s̶o̶c̶c̶e̶r̶ silver lining. Hopefully it can be built on quickly, intelligently, and beautifully.

^ They finally said something I agree with. “We believe [moving to Brookpark] has the benefit of freeing up valuable lakefront property in Downtown Cleveland,” Tywang said. “Our stadium is currently used 10,12 times a year and it’s a big footprint. It’s 25 acres of prime lakefront real estate and the more we looked at it, again we do not think that is the highest and best use.”

I mean, not to get too spicy, but because we built BRT instead of a subway or streetcar... That's right across from the new Cleveland Foundation headquarters. Very much a potentially game changing development for Midtown. Looking forward to whatever comes next.

Agreed, between the Christmas Story House Museum, and a ride on the Polar Express, that's a fine December Holiday themed weekend trip!