sonisharri

Ironically, Japan seems to know a lot about what happens when you try to cut off trade with "hostile" foreign nations... https://www.tutorchase.com/answers/ib/history/what-were-the-economic-consequences-of-isolation-for-japan If Cleveland-Cliffs dominates the domestic steel industry and imported steel is allowed to be tariffed at unimaginable rates, I don't think we can expect much innovation or improvement in efficiency in the US.

China literally makes our electronics. The most advanced semiconductors currently can only be manufactured in Taiwan (TSMC) - maybe the CHIPS act will eventually cause that to change. Not to mention raw materials like lithium mined in third world countries. Not an expert on auto but I'm pretty sure much of the components are built elsewhere before they are assembled here. Point being that without abundant trade we would spend significantly more for products that perform significantly worse. To bring this back on topic, companies in other countries have specialized knowledge enabled by our global supply chain. Nippon would bring some of this knowledge to the US by acquiring US Steel. Even if, hypothetically, we could relearn all of that knowledge on our own, train a domestic workforce to do what foreign executives already know how to do, and develop our own plants and equipment independently, our trade "rivals" would already be five steps ahead of us by the time we finish.

On the other hand, US Steel loses out on a technology transfer from Nippon if the deal remains blocked. According to Fortune they would gain access to over 2,000 new patents including products currently impossible to manufacture in the US. The US isn't the only country with world-class technology; if we expect to have any chance of staying ahead of China we need to embrace the technology of other countries, not cut it off. Technology transfer to China is basically inevitable in the long term, but combining American and Japanese industrial knowledge seems like a good way to stay ahead of the curve. I've been reading Jane Jacob's book The Economy of Cities which has some pretty relevant discussion about how city economies develop by importing technologies, learning to produce them domestically, then spinning off new technologies that can be exported. This is true in China but also in our own economies. I'm not an engineer but I imagine, for example, that there is a lot of potential for Pittsburgh to develop as an exporter of cutting edge robotics through the intersection of CMU's research and new access to advanced materials technology. I'm sure there are many more possible opportunities as well.

Exactly. I can't understand why the "national security" argument would have any substance when Japan is such a close ally. It also neglects any potential gains to national security in the form of stronger economic ties, shared innovation, and production efficiency. I understand many people are partial to Cliffs or protectionist policies. However these arguments purely support political motivations and the increased dominance of a single company across the entire industry.

And another from local tv... https://www.wtae.com/article/us-steel-nippon-trump-steelworkers/63085379

Yeah, I'm also on the side that light (ie. non-polluting) industrial within walking distance of housing is generally a good thing. However, I'd probably agree that much of it doesn't belong so close to the waterfront.

I just rode the Lake Shore Limited 14 hours east 2 days before... talk about a close call. Luckily we arrived about 10 minutes early.

I added one as well...

Yeah... they might have a tough time convincing people with that rendering. Probably 90% of the reasoning the building looks so gloomy. It's crazy how much of a difference 5 minutes of editing can make.

Upward! From the live webcam: https://iseb-project.case.edu/axis-cgi/mjpg/video.cgi

Woodhill Station East construction just barely visible behind the fence Woodhill Center East completed Many of the buildings behind these have been demolished at Woodhill Homes

So Hyatt already has a Regency downtown, and it's been confirmed the Dream hotel won't be "skyline changing." We can safely rule out the inclusive collection. If we assume they go for a different collection, JdV actually seems quite possible (plenty of mid-size markets, some new-builds, not crazy high-end). A skyline changing hotel would have a lot of rooms, so a mid-tier hotel seems more likely. I think we can rule out the more compact hotels, and Grand Hyatt seems a little too high end. Thompson or Andaz are my other guesses. Curious if anyone has guesses for SCH #2

Based on this map (from a proposal to reroute the river), yes.

I'm not too mad about the price because there's no chance I'd actually pay that much to live there. But either they'll be forced to lower the rent or people with money will decide that it's a nice sweet spot for shorter commutes. If they can attract enough of the very well-off who don't mind a little commute to an empty peninsula surrounded by industrial buildings and vacant land just by marketing it as "luxury"—all the power to them. Now they're not competing for rent in the units closest to transit connections, employers, and amenities. If we now get improved infrastructure, more restaurants, and a bigger tax base as a result, even better.

If we can encourage more retail and food with any newer developments that would be awesome. Tbh it's a fair point that there isn't much of this directly in the neighborhood (aside from Brewdog and hopefully GLBC). Hopefully the existing residential would make it more attractive.

I never liked the new railcar design. I'd be thrilled to see one of these alternate designs though (via @AllAboardOhio on Threads): https://www.threads.net/@allaboardohio/post/DCudorxyTUQ?xmt=AQGzyms61wD9uuAfgbMS3J12feYrElzsA18aPRwg1wlgZA

I like how there are more people parked on the street than the block-sized surface lots 😂

The entire Flats East Bank is a 4-minute bike ride away (according to Google Maps) without going uphill at all. WSM is a 6-minute ride uphill. Heck, you could even get to Steelyard in 15 minutes, theoretically. With a Red Line stop half a mile away and the Lake Link Trail literally next door, no able-bodied person would have to drive everywhere. That said this is definitely the wrong location for anyone in a wheelchair. Not saying that there's any chance I'd consider paying that much, but the peninsula is a convenient sweet spot with easy access to downtown, Ohio City, and the Flats.

"Quiet neighborhood, access to green space... people are dying to live here!"

Very true. I hope this changes over time, maybe if we see some development near Greyhound, or as other parts of downtown get more built out.

I second this. Superior is basically one of the most major streets downtown so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a substantial amount of retail and activity. If anything, the fact that it's so wide makes it perfect for things like food stands and outdoor dining while the midway could act as a bypass for traveling pedestrians and cyclists. The only place I've ever checked out on this stretch is Green Goat, and I'm pretty certain that's all there really is to see.

I appreciate that you're factoring in feasibility. To me, the difference between density on Fairmount and a Shaker Blvd/JCU extension is that the latter could open up new opportunities for TOD at the far end. I'll compare the Green Line (Riverside branch) in Boston: it passes through a lengthy stretch with nothing but single family homes and golf courses, but connects Newton Centre and major TOD has been proposed to anchor its terminus. Here's my drawing with a couple more possible TOD sites, as well as existing urban development. This is without clearing any SFHs for apartments, which has already been possible with Gateway North. I think added utility could be considered part of the feasibility equation as well as costs and space. The more new people that can benefit from a project, the more who will get behind it. Your proposed Green Line, as I understand, would run from the Clinic to Downtown, a route already served by the Healthline. The Red Line provides service from E 34th, E 55th, and E 79th to the Healthline/UC, forming what is already in some sense a circuitous connection. Therefore the major new destinations served by rapid transit to UC would be Shaker Square and Cedar-Fairmount, which is a fairly localized group. The nice thing about a UC + JCU extension is I think it could garner support in University Heights, Shaker Square, and among all of the existing Green Line riders (however few there may be) who would have access to new destinations. This also might be a relatively vocal set of people.

Actually, my JCU routing would move the end of the line 1 mile closer to the city (measured from Public Sq) by making a 90 degree turn northward rather than continuing into the suburbs. Assuming that's what you're referring to. I like your idea of routing via Fairmount—which would pay homage to historic streetcar routes, my only concern is that it's mostly large single family "houses" (except at Cedar where the 11 runs), whereas an MLK route passes mostly multi family.

In terms of how other transit could tie in, here's a rough idea with some major destinations outlined

I'd like to hope there are ways to create ridership generators instead of shutting down lines... Maybe expand on the Gateway North development with significant TOD and a little retail. Connect JCU to UC (it sounds like they have a nursing program—this would improve access to CC/UH) and build more housing for Clinic commuters. This way, you balance out Green/Blue line ridership (the lines could be easily reconfigured later). There seem to be a decent number of apartments nearby already, and developing at the current end of the line is (potentially?) controversial due to the existing park. Obviously all very expensive, and I'm sure there are reasons that make this difficult-to-impossible anytime soon. But thinking long-term it seems reasonable to leave options open for significant TOD within commuting distance to UC. If it costs $100M to expand Clinic parking for expected needs, what's it going to to cost in 5 years when they run out again? 10 years? At some point more money will be spent building parking garages than it would cost to just extend light rail and encourage TOD. And by then we'll actually want it because traffic will be twice as bad.