Ethan

Two things can be true at once. Republicans can be submitting egregiously gerrymandered maps in States like Ohio, and Republicans can have certain slight advantages in the redistricting process relative to their share of the popular vote. Look up Pennsylvania's 3rd district (current map, their isn't an official new proposal yet). It's a Democrat +80 district (downtown Philly) surrounded entirely by three Democrat +20 districts. It's extremely compact, and doesn't look gerrymandered at all, there's also little point to gerrymandering it, since it's surrounded entirely by safe Democratic districts. Having a district going this heavily to the Dems will result in in them getting fewer seats than would be expected by their popular vote margin, since this 90-10 district is nearly casting enough votes to elect 2 Democrats. Basically 40% of the D votes here are extra. But this isn't a gerrymandered district; really the only way to correct this for the D's is to gerrymander this district, and crack the dense city center further into the suburbs to drown out more R votes. If you draw the most compact districts possible, you end up with this problem in every large city. This should put D's at a few seat disadvantage relative to their popular vote margin if you aim solely for compactness. Edit: also if you think the article I quoted confirms your point, I'd love to know where. I've read through it several times and I didn't get that. I qouted you the part where they disagree with your assertions. As far as the VRA, I don't know how it came into play with Ohio's map, I was just making a general point.

I agree that the large parking lot is an ugly scar, but the reality is that a dedicated parking space is an amenity that the median tenant/buyer wants, particularly for market rate housing. So there's a good chance we'd have this parking lot, even without city requirements. If the development didn't have parking the pool of people interested would be smaller, thus lower demand, and lower rents/prices. :/ Personally, I'd like to see dedicated parking area reduced by making use of the third dimension, either building up or down, but that would probably eliminate the developer's margins.

See the article I posted a few comments above. It does exactly that, and, yes, that is one of the problems they discuss with the approach. You disagreed with @Brutus_buckeyeand @Ram23who made more or less exactly these points.

From 538, arguing two points you have 'argued' against: "Our interactive estimates that if Democrats controlled the redistricting process in every state, they could draw 263 “usually Democratic” seats and limit the GOP to 145 “usually Republican” seats. But that’s less lopsided than the 275 to 139 advantage in “usually safe” seats that the Republicans would enjoy under their fantasy scenario. Why? The reasons are rooted in several fundamental geographic and legal realities. First, more than in past decades, Democratic voters are inefficiently clustered in big cities and college towns. In 2012 and 2016, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton carried the popular vote while winning just 22 percent and 16 percent of America’s counties, respectively. That means that in many states, it’s easier for Republicans to pack Democratic voters into a few lopsided districts than vice versa — a natural geographic advantage for the GOP. Second, the Voting Rights Act limits the extent to which Democrats can spread their voters across many districts, because it provides safeguards against diluting majority-minority districts. For example, if the Voting Rights Act didn’t exist, Illinois Democrats could theoretically “unpack” Chicago’s three heavily African-American districts and spread out their overwhelmingly Democratic voters to obliterate the state’s GOP-leaning districts. Instead, the current Democratic gerrymander in Illinois has produced a modest 11-7 Democratic edge in congressional seats." Article https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hating-gerrymandering-is-easy-fixing-it-is-harder/

Some very fair points. Others we can agree to disagree on. My mind is just defaulting to downtown and downtown like environments just because that's where I live now. But there's plenty of more dense neighborhoods in and around the city that are functionally very similar to suburbs. I agree with all your criticisms of suburbs, I think they're hell, but I don't like assuming that people are stupid, being manipulated, or acting against their best interest. So I try to make their case for them. Personally, I agree with you and have found a much stronger sense of community living in Cleveland than the suburbs. That said, I've met plenty of people who've told me the exact opposite. As far as light pollution it really is horrendous just about everywhere in the United States, downtowns are definitely the worst (and their effects radiate out quite a bit), but plenty of suburbs are really bad for no justifiable reason as well. It doesn't really get better until you get out into the country side. (and even then, it doesn't compare to an unpolluted sky) Once you get out of downtown the prime culprit is definitely street lights. Though any light that is pointed up (common in architectural and landscape lighting) has an outsized effect on light pollution. In one form or another, Basically all of light pollution comes from people (overly) concerned with safety, or vanity lighting. As far as noise, I guess compare with rural living instead of suburbs if you like. I'm not responding to any questions about how I live my life. Your point about how there is a spectrum of urban living is well taken and I agree. My point actually squares well with that. I would just extend your spectrum beyond urban living and take it all the way to cabin in the woods. Some people just want to live on different points of that spectrum, because there are tradeoffs all along that spectrum. Really, what most people want is: to be surrounded by miles of nature (that they own), with plenty of space to entertain friends, who can easily visit whenever, in a location that is near to a supermarket or grocery store, with lots of restaurants, bars, and stores within walking distance, shows, nightlife, backyard pools, low taxes, and several other contradictory things from different points on the housing spectrum all at that same time.

I don't understand the point of extolling the virtues of density on this forum, it's the definition of preaching to the choir. If you want to stop suburban sprawl you need to understand the people driving it. My point was that the first step to that understanding is recognizing that there are real trade offs to urban living. There are, of course, also major tradeoffs to rural living. This forum is filled with people who desire density for density's sake. There are also people who desire precisely the opposite! I've met people who want to live in the Alaskan wilderness by themselves, maybe with a family. Most people lie somewhere in between. The whole idea behind suburbs was originally to be an ideal middle ground, best of both worlds, between the city and countryside. (Personally, I think suburbs get the worst of both worlds, with none of the benefits, but obviously the people seeking them out see things differently.) If you apply the middle ground logic it becomes clearer to see why people flock to the suburbs, but it also provides a blue print as to what can be done about it. As I alluded to earlier, making cities greener is the obvious first step. I think most cities have about an order of magnitude less park space than they should have. While I think rural and suburban areas could use more parks as well, they also aren't as necessary, as most people have some outside space of their own. I'm sorry, but this a perfect example of the type of urban hell that makes people run to the suburbs. Suburbanites want to know their neighbors, they enjoy saying hello to them daily, they enjoy knowing everyone on their street. They just also enjoy that they don't have to constantly interact with strangers. I'm sure that happens on some streets in the city too, but I live downtown, and my experience sounds similar to yours in Lakewood. Hell, I rarely see the same person in the elevator twice! This forum would be far more useful if it focused on the Problems with urbanism rather than the benefits of it. Otherwise it's about as useful as a room full of Republicans talking about the benefits of conservatism (or Democrats/liberalism)

Paying more than 2x what the land is worth seems suspicious to me, as much as I agree we should be making better use of this space. This shows what I believe is the most recent plan. https://www.ideastream.org/news/new-shaker-square-design-integrates-central-public-space-with-neighborhoods Making the actual square into usable green space would liven up the area nicely, right now it just feels like an extra large median.

This all seems pretty correct. The one point that never gets brought up on this forum though is that there are also a lot of disadvantages that come with density: lack of privacy, little space to oneself (particularly outdoor space), light and noise pollution, and constant interaction with strangers (which some people like, but a lot of people don't). These are a big part of the reason that some people choose the further suburbs. I think your point about public parks is particularly well placed, because LARGE public parks can promote the positive aspects of density while ameliorating some of its negative consequences. I say large, because small 'urban' parks of the type often favored on this forum don't do this. The point is to decompress and offer the illusion of nature. Preferably you can find a little corner where you can be near enough to alone. That doesn't work if you can see the street from everywhere in the park and everyone on the street can see you.

I don't have any numbers, nor do I think I could give a good estimate, sorry.

Okay, if you say so... I took your advice, and "googled it." From everything you and Google say, it just sounds like a better, upgraded version of a food court. I actually agree that Downtown needs better lunch options, and I'm sort of excited for this new place to go in, but that doesn't change the fact that there are lots of empty stalls in the arcades/TC that could be harder to fill if this goes in. Here's hoping you're right! Also, I do eat at the Tower City food court, someone has to support TC!

It doesn't matter if a food hall is a direct competitor with a food court, because the individual stalls are all in competition with each other, regardless of what framework they are in where. If I get lunch at one place, I didn't get lunch at the other place, so yes, they are in competition. Regardless of how much more hipster-approved a food hall is than a food court.

Tower city has been doing a lot of events recently. They've been hosting free concerts, there's a magic show coming up, etc.

Bobby George Way here we come! 🤣

Still plenty of work to do on the park, but it looks like the last leg of the Towpath Trail has now been paved!

The first real successful test of Hyperloop technology was about a year ago, so make this point again in a few decades... Unless you want to start the clock when someone first had the idea, in which case heavier than air flight is at a few millennia. Your analogy doesn't make your point.

Sure, it could flip. If the math is right, it would take a D+3 year, which isn't too hard. By the final numbers Biden was more than +4, so in a similar election it would likely flip.

Here's a useful resource. It's worth pointing out that the lean R districts are +8 - +11, and it would take a pretty big D wave to flip them. The toss ups also still have a Republican advantage. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/ohio/senate_gop_proposal_2/

I strongly disagree with this: "Stop closing the Public Square Bus Lanes for superfluous events. Closing Superior Avenue through Public Square creates delays that ripple throughout the GCRTA system and affect thousands of riders. Weekday closures in 2021 included: Holiday Tree Installation, a Recharge Auto Rally, and a City Club event." Superfluous is a word that leaves plenty of wiggle room, but a lot of the events that close down PS are awesome! and couldn't be done at PS, or even at all, without closing the square. The best example of this (to me) was a Hip Hop dance event/competition that closed down the square for a whole Saturday. The square functioned as one unit, and it brought a cool, cultural event into the heart of Cleveland. We should be striving to have more events like this, which means closing down the square MORE OFTEN.

I've had similar thoughts, there are several easy wins that the last administration just left to fester. Bibb could win over some detractors and get some momentum if he can knock some of these out in the first 100 days. Particularly the first two, which have nearly 100% agreement throughout the city. The other four aren't quite as much of layups, but still present real opportunities for wins if executed well. The rest of your list is a combination of difficult and/or controversial things. I hope his administration will be wise enough to collect on all those easy wins first as they will benefit the whole city in addition to himself. Leave the difficult and controversial until after the easier and broadly agreed upon things have been adaequately addressed.

A nice little addition. https://clevelandmagazine.com/in-the-cle/news/articles/buckeye-woodhill-is-getting-new-green-space-after-years-of-waiting

According to Google Maps, even without the opportunity corridor, driving was still twice as fast (starting at WSM). So not really an edge, but I think a lot of people are willing to exchange 2x time for the convenience of public transport (for short distances). I don't think the same can be said for 3x time though, so if the opportunity corridor shaves enough time off the commute, it's conceivable that RTA could lose some traffic as a result.

Most of the land around it is surface parking. I don't understand why we're demolishing historic structures instead of building on the surface lots! Especially when there isn't even a planned development yet.

From my inbox, looks like the event trend is continuing: There are some fun events coming to Tower City Center starting tomorrow... take a look below and visit https://www.towercitycenter.com/events/ for more information: Runaway June Concert Thursday, November 4th Doors open at 6:00pm and the concerts starts at 6:30pm Signature cocktails and craft beers available in the food hall area Jungle Bob Animal Show Sunday, November 7th The event is from 11:00am-2:00pm Plain White T’s at Tower City Thursday, November 18th Doors open at 6:00pm and the concert starts at 6:30pm Signature cocktails and craft beers available in the food hall area Free, family friendly magic show Sunday, November 21st The event goes from 11:00am-2:00pm. All of these events are free to the public. The concerts are ticketed events - tickets may be reserved on the Tower City Website listed above or any other Tower City Social Media sources. All profits from the Signature Cocktails and Craft beers go to a local Non-Profit Organization. For this Thursdays’ concert, The May Dugan Center is the organization that will benefit from the concert.

It's impressive how few facts there are in such a long discussion. Here's one, If you look at the top 10 States for interstate migration, 8/10 are red or purple States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration This doesn't demonstrate that red or purple policies are preferable, or whether or not they make a difference, but it definitely doesn't bolster the theory that people are actively avoiding red States based on policy. If anything, it suggests the opposite or that it makes no difference. In terms of policies people might prefer? It mostly comes down to (lower) taxes. You can see this in polling. Ask people if they support a certain popular policy, and it will have large support, but if instead, you ask, would you be willing to pay x more in taxes in exchange for such a policy? Support always drops significantly. Frequently the amount people would be willing to pay is comically low, it's worth looking into, but I digress. Personally, I don't think policies matter much to Most people, with the possible exceptions of those that will affect their pocketbook. Neighboring and nearby blue States are also suffering from net negative domestic migration. Meanwhile, Sunbelt cities are gaining. Weather seems to be the strongest factor if one is looking at it statistically.

I agree, the anchor need not be retail, and I think it's probably best it isn't. Whatever ends up filling the Theater's spot will likely need to fill the anchor role. I like @ragarciasuggestion of a Dave and Busters, I think it could maybe serve as a family friendly compliment to the Casino (hopefully they wouldn't compete). I agree that Tower City doesn't have space for an IKEA, nor is it well suited for one (imagine moving any furniture out of Tower City to a car)