Ethan

Yup, the the correct remedy to the state spending public funds poorly, isn't to spend even more money. The solution is either to spend less money, or to spend it smarter. If investing public funds in a stadium is a bad idea, it's still a bad idea when paired with a good investment. The spoonful of sugar approach is great for getting little kids to take their medicine. It's inappropriate as a governing strategy.

Absolutely. My point is that losing people to surrounding counties is much less bad than people leaving the region entirely. It's a lot easier to come back from, and if we can start attracting more people to the region, the easy sprawl is already gone, so it will be less challenging to entice them towards Cuyahoga County. It's not easy anymore to find spacious, affordable lots relatively close to civilization anymore in surrounding counties. With the easy sprawl out of the way, I like Cuyahoga County odds of redensifying moving forward.

^ While not ideal, I'm glad the outer counties picked up the slack the last forty years. The problems with sprawl have been discussed at nauseum, but I think the region as a whole is better off with the majority of those 200,000 people having moved to surrounding counties versus having left the region completely. Cuyahoga county is in a much better position to re-densify with the surrounding counties already largely sprawled out.

Fair, but I doubt the economic case for such museum would be great. Probably good attendence from the people on this forum, but the broader public... I'm not so sure. Think of it this way, reusing it as a children's museum kept this historic structure in place and mostly in tact.

The "lesson learned" would be don't do business in Cleveland.

Fair, but I think the original assumption, at least on this forum, would be that the mixed use district would be located near the new infill stop, thus justifying both of their existences. Ideally these would both also be near a new Amtrak stop, and a pedestrian bridge overpass to the airport. Perhaps overly optimistic on our part, but those three things would have more than justified an RTA stop. For that matter, if 3C+D happens, we might want a local transit stop to service the station anyway, so it could have been considered pre work in the hopes of that landing. To be honest, the massing for the proposed mixed use district have been wildly disappointing to say the least. I'm now hoping that part just doesn't happen. Keep public investment to a minimum, and don't pull business from downtown. Weirdly Cleveland would perhaps be better served if this domed stadium is mostly a flop. It would free up Lakefront land without pulling other non-football events from downtown. If the mixed use district doesn't happen, a good portion of the football restaurant traffic may still end up going downtown. That's not to say it still couldn't be done well, but I've seen nothing to this point to suggest that will be the case.

Since this final massing was decided upon, I think the commission's tweaks have generally helped. I'd rather have had the original design though. If anything, this whole project has demonstrated the perils of too much pushback from committees like this. It's been a mess, and probably cost the developer a ton of money, for what ended up being basically no reason. In the future the commission should be more cautious about requiring changes that send developers back to the drawing board. Stick to small things like cladding materials, etc.

Eh, cars are pretty fast, from W25th and Detroit that would result in a five minute time savings. Really not a lot. The metroparks has plans to purchase the Ontario Stone parcel across the tracks. I'm sure they'll put a small amount of parking there for precisely the reason you mentioned (hopefully not too much). That would be a better solution to the problem you raised.

What did you have in mind? Replacing Willow Avenue Bridge? or something more ambitious?

The question about the reality of safety is interesting, but somewhat irrelevant, because ultimately what matters is the perception of safety. While objective numbers might be hard to gather, I'd be shocked if Lakeview Terrace isn't dragging down the perception of safety in the area, justified or not. The perception alone is enough to hold the neighborhood back.

^ Likewise by not connecting to the airport via transit or direct pedestrian connection, they will get all of the downsides of living near the airport, with none of the potential upsides. I could see a market for people/businesses that are frequent travelers wanting to locate somewhere with direct access to the airport. To anyone traveling more frequently than weekly, this could be substantial time savings. Again missed opportunity to appeal to a nich market. They aren't leveraging the benefits of the location at all with this massing. Only seeking to minimize its downsides.

So it looks like they have no interest in developing near a potential infill Red Line station, nor making any kind of pedestrian connection to the airport. Seems like a major missed opportunity to me.

This was basically my point, though I'm assuming the public subsidy will come in my form of flood infrastructure. And the bigger cities like Miami get, the more likely this becomes. It's the too big to fail problem.

You may be right, but I'm not basing anything on popularity here. I'm just saying that people don't site buildings on a whim. Lots of research goes into it. More than the average person on this forum has done or has time to do. Developers generally don't care about anything except their investment. For one reason or another developers have basically zero concern about building in Miami. That may change in the future. It could be that we just aren't close enough to high water levels for it to ward off developers. But when developers stop building, Miami should be worried. Until then I'll have absolutely zero concern about Miami's medium term future. Long term may be another matter.

I might be, but many, many developers are still choosing to build in Miami. They may not be considering quite as far out as 2100, but they I'm sure they are doing so with consideration of likely long term market trends, of course that will include potential impacts of climate change. They could all be wrong, but many smart people have put a lot of money betting on the medium to long term future of Miami.

Even if the climate plays out as predicted by the most pessimistic studies. Miami will not be underwater. It may become a Dutch style Island, but infrastructure will be built to keep the water out. It's simply becoming too valuable to surrender to nature. A similar situation is the Mississippi and New Orleans. The delta has wanted to move for a long time. We decided that nature's whims weren't acceptable in this case and force the river to maintain its past course.

That was the plan, but I was a bit skeptical of it, and I clearly wasn't alone. I'd argue moving the stadium to Burke would have made developing the Muni Lot even less likely. Moving to Brook Park though means these surface lots are even less useful, and that there won't be any substantial moneyed interest defending them behind the scenes. That shouldn't matter, and hopefully they get developed regardless of where the Browns go or don't go, but I like the odds better if the Browns are playing in Brook Park.

Honestly could probably stop reading after this, "HSG is only releasing the executive summary of the study." But other interesting nuggets are: "Of the $1.2 billion in economic output, $550 million would come from the mixed-use development of residential, retail and hotels. About $217 million would come from stadium events, including concerts and shows." - Which is to say most of the supposed economic benefit isn't even coming from the stadium. "According to the study, total spending at bars, restaurants and hotels in downtown Cleveland would increase by about $11 million with the additional visitors more Brook Park events would bring. (The city of Cleveland estimated that downtown would lose about $10 million without the stadium on the lakefront.)" -amazing they somehow came up with a number slightly larger than the earlier released study released by the the City of Cleveland. \s Releasing only the summary without revealing the methodology of the study is basically an admission that the study isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I can make a study show anything if I'm given free reign to make whatever assumptions I want, and since they didn't release the actual study, just a summary, it's safe to assume that's exactly what they did. Personally, if it isn't paid for by public funds, I don't much care where in NEO it's built, but as far as I can tell this study s worthless and shouldn't move the needle at all since it can't be examined.

I'll give my hot take. Not huge on this particular rendering tbh. But count me in for recladding Rhodes. I'd rather see a more intentional rejection of brutalism in how it is reclad though. Add detail and aesthetic elements designed to draw the eye. Some art deco elements would be a really cool addition for instance. Carve, add framing elements, I have no idea what's possible, but I'd love to see creative reinterpretations. While on principal I like the idea of preserving architecture as close to its original design as possible. I think the main purpose of historic preservation is to preserve beauty. I would describe Brutalism as basically a rejection of the idea that buildings should be beautiful (at least in the traditional sense) and this isn't even a particularly good example of the style. Let's keep the nine as our downtown brutalist building. It's architecturally interesting and fits with the surrounding architecture well enough. Rhodes can be restyled.

I'm not sure @AsDustinFoxWouldSay is advocating for stop and frisk, merely pointing out that it was successful. Protecting civil liberties is pretty much always in tension with preventing crime. It's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge stop and frisk worked while still opposing it on civil liberties grounds. Bukele's programs in El Salvador have been miraculously successful, and probably a good trade in that instance, but they also completely trampled the civil liberties of many accused criminals. Alternatively, as my highschool history teacher liked to say Saddam Hussein never had a crime problem. It's a trade off.

Startups are usually struggling to survive. That leads to stress and often long hours. Well established companies generally are more secure, and have more resources to devote to employee satisfaction. Quite frankly, I assume the only reason Tesla and SpaceX are on the list is a sense of shared mission among the employees.

The upgrade in QB likeability that Jameis Winston has brought is off the charts. Night and day difference. Playing pretty well too, all things considered. I'd rather root for the QB who is entertaining and at least seemingly a good person than for a QB that is a bit better (though hasn't really shown it, at least for us) but is bringing enough personal baggage to drag the rest of the team down with him. Regardless we need to end the revolving door at QB, pick someone and stick with him.

^ it seems like the City learned its lesson from last year then, because that sounds like what preceded the violence last year. Kudos to the police and City for wise preventative action.

Part of the problem is that with current realities, there's no way an equivalent project (NYC to CHI) would only cost $67 billion. Based on current trends with CAHSR I'd say the optimistic guess is 3-4 times that amount. But I wouldn't be surprised if it would end up being 6-10 times that amount. If we could actually build a true HSR line from NYC to CHI on time and on budget for $67 billion, it would be a lot easier to make the case for an equivalent project. Obviously there'd still be opposition, but it would be much smaller. Unfortunately, we're hamstrung by our inability to build large infrastructure projects anymore. It's less we can't afford it, and more we seem to be unable to build for anything near what peer countries (such as Spain) would pay.

😭😭😭 This is a travesty, and doomed to failure. One of the few places in downtown Cleveland that regularly plays live music is pivoting away from live music towards DJ'd music. Apparently live music is less popular than recorded music in Cleveland. I consider that an indictment of the average citizen. I'm not happy, the best reason to visit the flats is effectively closing up by giving up on its raison d'etre. Their halfway plan isn't going to work. I'd bet within a year the bar is either closed entirely, or will fully transition to yet another lame club. https://www.crainscleveland.com/restaurants/big-bang-dueling-piano-bar-rebrand-flats "Dall's plan is for the bar to still run a piano show from around 6 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. “in hopes to keep a lot of our old customer base” before switching over to the DJs later in the evening. The bar will be remodeled and rethemed in the six weeks it's closed, adopting a 1980s style. The structure will mostly stay the same, Dall said, but the plan is for smaller piano shells on the stage so there is room for a permanent DJ booth as well."