Ethan

I mean, yeah probably. E 4th is a pretty short street. It's also surrounded by a large walkable area, and is very much buoyed by large crowds coming in for sports games. I'm not sure the two streets are very comparable. I think this is a fascinating example to discuss, because, as you say, it's such a great counterexample to the general direction of this site. Personally I wonder if the press of changing up the downtown area, and this street in particular, helped to remind people it was there in the first place? Another interesting thing is that I remember there being a large parking garage that is free to the public within a block of this previously pedestrianized area. It's interesting that wasn't sufficient to support the area. One theory may be that because it wasn't drawing enough pedestrians, it created a negative feedback loop where it felt sketchy because it was nearly empty, and it was nearly empty because it felt sketchy? No idea if that makes sense or not. (I also wasn't down there really at all when it was car free so I can't personally attest to if it felt sketchy). Maybe the presence of a few cars helped it achieve the minimum density to break that negative feedback cycle? Again, I'm just spitballing, but I'm curious what other people think. In general, I agree with a lot of the above comments stating it's just harder to create pedestrian focused place if it will functionally be an island. Maybe the goal should be to move to car-light pedestrian focused areas first, rather than going straight to car-free pedestrian focused areas?

Yeah that survey hardly seems worth filling out... To their credit though, it does seem like they really took into account feedback from the previous listening sessions and surveys. Several of the things I've seen complained about on this site seem to have likely come directly from community feedback. Most notably the more public centered approach (less housing focused), but also things like the beach, and the hard courts. Personally, I'm included to see the wisdom in the crowd. Take the basketball courts for instance. People are dunking on that idea, but I'm not aware of any (publicly accessible) basketball courts downtown. (This despite downtown apparently being oversaturated with parks \s ). Even from a visitor's perspective one of the things that makes urban parks nice is that they are used by the locals. A few hard courts should help with that, and it can only accelerate downtown's growth. Similarly for the beach, while I'm not much of a beach person myself, and I'm sympathetic to the engineering challenges argument being advanced by others, I still think it's a good idea. People want it. They like to be close to the water, and nothing feels closer to the water (for some people anyway) than a beach. Again, this is an amenity that will help sell downtown to prospective residents who might be on the fence. It can only help accelerate downtown's growth.

Okay, interesting, do you have any estimates about how much of a carbon saving this would be relative to diesel engine trains? Assuming all trains transitioned, but the grid stays the same as today (or additional capacity is added to account for the trains, but with the same mix as today).

Electrifying the rails is great, but if you don't have a green grid first, you could just end up with a (indirectly) coal powered train. Maybe there are other efficiencies associated with electrifying routes, but there are also inefficiencies from converting to and transporting electricity. I have a hard time imagining it being better than a wash (with respect to carbon) anywhere the grid isn't already powered by carbon neutral sources.

If past experience is any guide, I wouldn't be surprised if the "water play" area on the current plan is intended to be a splash pad in the summer and an ice rink in the winter, similar to the one on public square.

I'm sick of the 'we can't have nice outdoor things because it's sometimes cold outside' attitude. Will this area see a lot of use in mid November - mid March? No, probably not, but it will get a lot of use from mid-May to mid September, and decent use the rest of the year. Lots of other "northern" cities have nice large downtown parks (including New York and Chicago). I think Cleveland can manage just as well. -- Now, with respect to the claim being made by some that Cleveland's downtown is oversaturated with parks, I disagree radically. I wrote out a long post arguing this before, so I'll just quote it here.

Yeah, I also don't like the curved land bridge. I also wonder if part of the purpose of the curve is so that it can coexist with the current shoreway. Litt's article may have mentioned something to that effect. Obviously thinner is cheaper, but I'd rather it feel like continuous land, not a bridge. So more land bridge, less bridge bridge. The curved path is fine, but I'd rather it be a curved path on a mall sized land bridge, at least over the principal gap. It's fine if it shrinks near the science center parking garage (I might actually prefer that). Edit: what if they blended into the curve sort of like this?

It looks like they have a cruise ship terminal on the west side of this space. That seems fine to me.

!! I've been asking for this as well! Maybe they actually read my post it note at the listening session! I didn't even notice this during the presentation.

I like the plan overall. I enjoy the wide mix of uses, and my initial impression is that it's well balanced. I'd personally like the land bridge to be a bit wider, and I have a few other minor critiques, but more than anything else, I'd just like something to get built. Does anyone have the presentation?

Is this meeting being live streamed in any capacity?

At minimum, the money should pool from the whole Cleveland CSA. Basically the whole media market the team serves should help to support the stadium construction, if public money is to be used at all. Placing the burden on just the city/county the stadium will be placed in doesn't seem reasonable.

Out of topic in the Brown's stadium discussion, but E Rocc's not wrong. I've seen the beginnings of this myself. Not that it's the majority opinion yet or anything, but in our standard reactionary political climate, anything sufficiently popular on the left will engender a negative backlash from a portion of the right. (and vice versa). Also, I resent the implication that anyone who says "some people think x" is automatically covering for their own beliefs. Assuming as much is little more than an ad hominem and has no place in a good faith discussion.

There was some discussion on this in the downtown parks and public spaces thread a while back.

I understand your point, and in a certain sense, you're not wrong, but I can't help being reminded of the Joker's speech in The Dark Knight. People learn to accept whatever is normal, even if it's terrible, it's "all part of the plan." In this case, I think this is one of those things we have learned to accept as normal that we shouldn't. The seriously mentally unwell present real problems for cities, and because there is no easy solution that respects all of our values in the modern, western world we have just allowed the problem to be normalized. I don't think that's the best path forward, we need a real solution. (I'm not accusing you of villainy by comparing you to the Joker btw, he's making a good point, it was just the best example that came to my mind).

One way to possibly evaluate this would be to look at the perception of national crime versus crime in the respondents area over time. Two sets of data below, one supports your hypothesis (increasing divergence between the two) and the other does not. https://www.statista.com/statistics/205560/public-perception-of-crime-problem-in-nationwide-and-local/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ft_20-11-12_crimeintheus_3/ Edit: I should say I'm sympathetic to your hypothesis. Adding to your point about KJP's video, it's also the thing that probably wouldn't have even made local news. What would the headline be "local crazy homeless man acts crazy?" But on social media, the headline can be "Look what happened to me today!" And it's almost guaranteed to go viral. -- From what I can tell the reality seems to be that crime overall is down or stagnant, but violent crime seems to be increasing, both nationally and locally. https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Cleveland-Ohio.html -- Personally, what seems to me to be increasing (anecdotally of course) is the flagrant hoodlumism. The "just try and catch me coppers" attitude from local punks is getting out of control, and that seems to be creating a the impression that the City (Cleveland) doesn't really have control. From what I've gathered, this doesn't seem to be a Cleveland specific problem. I don't have any statistics to back that up though.

I am getting sick of this as well. As I've said before crime and lawlessness don't have to rise to the level of "violent" to be a problem. The perception of safety and security matter almost as much as the corresponding reality. People need to feel safe and comfortable to want to live in, or even just hang out in, a place. These petty little crimes stack up and work to erode the feelings and perceptions of safety and comfort. All of this means we need police, and we need to empower them to do their job, and that includes enforcing the "small" stuff. Disagree, just because something has become normal does not mean it isn't bad. Erratic behavior like this from mentally unwell people is a large contributor to the erosion of the sense of public safety and comfort. Plus there's the second issue that the offender needs help (the psychiatric kind), and as long as he's allowed to act as he pleases, he isn't receiving that help.

Surveys and listening sessions for Cleveland parks and recreation department. Click the link for short/long surveys, or for more information about the in person sessions. https://cleparksrecplan.com/

Is adding Ashtabula county to the Cleveland MSA a result of more super commuters from Ashtabula to Cleveland, or a result of a change in definition / people commuting into Lake County?

Demo is making good progress.

I kind of like the consistency across the marquees (other critiques aside), and it occurs to me that part of the idea may have been to match the pre-existing playhouse square signage. Overall, minor issues aside, these are an improvement.

Still not sure if these changes were worth cutting down the mature trees, but regardless, glad it's open!

I would love it if this development was the cause of some more attention and love to the downtown cemetery. I think if it were beautified a bit it could be a nice amenity for downtown residents to use respectfully. This was discussed a bit in the downtown parks and public space thread.

This was an interesting article! It's always interesting to remember that being green/environmentally friendly generally still requires tradeoffs. Such as destroying important natural habitat to construct an expensive treatment center for runoff. I'm persuaded by the mayor's argument, primarily due to the relative infrequently with which this system would even be used. 200 million for a system that will be in use 1-2 times a year doesn't seem like a good use of funds. Hopefully the government bureaucracy and the EPA don't prove intractable in this instance. Personally I'd like to keep the area near the Towpath as nature rich as possible. I don't like the idea of cutting down a bunch of trees to build a water treatment center. If it's absolutely necessary that's one thing, but it's hard for me to see something that will only be used 1-2 times a year as absolutely necessary.

Close up of the welcome center. Should be a pretty little shack. I'm really excited for the planned landscaping. Best case scenario it forces public square to up its game.