sonisharri

How about Option 4: light rail from downtown to Lakewood?

I don't hate it, mostly being dramatic about the colors and choice of patio fencing for an especially high end building. On the one hand I'm sure they make for interesting spaces, but on the other I can't help myself from seeing a towering wooden fence against the sidewalk. Maybe with a little bit of weathering the colors will even out. And of course anything is better than a vacant lot.

Guys, we got so distracted by Bridgeworks that we didn't even notice the de-yassified LaQuinta going up down the street! They even barricaded the windows for extra security 🙃

Done.

🤡

I try to be supportive of property owners' design freedom... but if I'm being honest I completely agree. Save designs like this for blank walls, ugly warehouses or new builds. A nice contrast is Dante/Ginko in Tremont—historic facade preserved but lively restaurants inside. I'm never gonna be the person that says "lock 'em up" for painting the front of a building, but social media shaming is perfectly fair game ;)

I found the presentation—definitely an improvement over the current conditions. https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1DPZOlKNknU9KPbEpsHx2V2icQUuWqOiR I'm confused as to whether they actually intend on restoring Shaker Square into a traffic circle—the article mentions the original Moreland Circle design. Personally I think a "square-about" would utilize space more effectively while allowing for smooth traffic flow. I know this is a contentious debate, but I don't think the Square is very effective as a car-oriented shopping center. More housing + public/private parking garages to replace street parking might be a strategic move long-term. Anyway, heres some photos of the "authentic" circle design and the (quite different) new proposal. https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/428 September 2024 Presentation — Existing vs. Proposed As a nearby resident who frequents Shaker Square, I think the improved connectivity including sidewalks into the center of the Square are a huge win. I like that the center-running lanes feel a little less like a highway, though they still take up quite a bit of real estate. I'm still optimistic about the changes to come.

Agreed. I wouldn't be mad if every urban gas station looked like this, though.

1. Clearly this type of housing isn't for you, nothing wrong with having preferences. In some sense these make detached homes more affordable by offering an alternative (reducing excess demand) 2. They look like houses because they are houses. Townhouses are one of two categories of houses (detached vs. attached), it's just the case that one type is predominant in Cleveland. Many cities including Philly, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and even rural towns in PA are full of row homes and it seems extreme to think those thousands of homeowners are just "playing make believe." 3. We have cities because humans built cities. We have open suburbs because we built open suburbs. NIMBYism aims to keep things the way they are, failing to consider that the way things are exists precisely because we changed the way things were before. 4. Townhomes are a lower cost style of living, not inherently a lower income style of living. You may find that decreasing costs actually increases financial independence. Many find this a comfortable middle ground as opposed to an apartment since they can still be sold to recover costs. And of course, as you said some people don't care about privacy as much or don't want to care for a lawn. Increasing diversity of housing stock increases freedom of choice.

— Every bird before they fly into a modern high rise

I have a slight suspicion that the Cleveland Cavaliers first practiced in Cleveland (even if only for a few years). But your point is absolutely valid for the tens of institutions that abandoned their homes in the suburbs for downtown Cleveland.

Exactly true. Which is why these new lakefront plans really make it feel like announcing a deal to move to Brookpark was just a bargaining tactic to swing the public opinion on subsidies. The frame has been shifted from financing a domed stadium on the lakefront vs. an undomed stadium in the lakefront, to leaving the city for a domed stadium in Brookpark (and potentially fighting a legal battle that might get the Modell law overturned) vs. financing an even shinier domed stadium on the lakefront as fast as bureaucratically possible. So which one are we gonna pick?

Hmmm, the Windy City looks a bit different in this photo... Who would've ever guessed an NFL team would buy a massive parcel of land in an inner ring suburb conveniently next to rail transit, announce plans to relocate from a hundred year old downtown lakefront stadium location causing outrage among thousands of fans, before renderings for a brand new downtown stadium seemingly come out of nowhere. Anchoring? Or is it possible I'm reading too far between the lines? Perhaps we were just too Bearish on the stadium staying downtown.

Decades from now this photo will be in a history exhibit... This construction site in the Flats, circa 2024, whispers of a bygone industrial era now yielding to the rising tide of affluent urban living. - Written by AI

Nearly 11,000 replies in and still not a single photo of a finished "Sherwin Williams" sign from Public Square 👀 Just kidding, y'all. But whoever posts it should officially claim the first photo of the completed daytime view of the building :) the shack doesn't count.

I can't speak for Grocery Outlet specifically, but I visited another one of California'a discount grocery chains when I was in LA and it was miles better than my local Dave's—incredibly clean, well-stocked, and a great value. This isn't Family Dollar we're talking about here...

To be completely honest, when you first mentioned this presentation I passed it off as "just an idea." I'd forgotten about it until recently when it came back up in my saved YouTube videos... "Every idea is fiction until we act" really hit me hard. The truth in this is more apparent to me every day—and for the more grown up members of this forum, I'm willing to bet you're still surprised at how many things that seemed like fiction 30 years ago turned into reality with sufficient time and effort. I can relate to building my imaginary cities in Minecraft and daydreaming about how much I would change the world if I could. Now as I take the first steps in my career path I realize those don't have to be dreams for much longer. I'm in the process of applying to internships for several real estate and financial firms and regardless of how those pan out, I think I've settled on a long-term goal of leading my own projects in urban development or transportation someday. Whether you're involved in this industry or not, I think this is an awesome example of how anyone can take their ideas and turn them into actions. I'm really looking forward to the rest of UO's "Cleveland What If/Hypothetical/Dream Projects," even if just a fraction of them can turn into reality 😉

Careful, if you find a good one available you better buy it on the spot. Registrars comb through every search and buy up the best ones before anyone else can. I learned this the hard way. Between the lakefront, riverfront, Burke, Irishtown Bend, W 25th projects, PHSQ/Greyhound, Warehouse District/Courthouse projects, and everything else that's already planned or basically necessary: the "urban core" is on a trajectory to become seriously impressive in the next decade or two. With interest rates coming down I'm betting there's even more to come than we expect. I'm aware this is basically what people have been saying for years, but it really seems like we've begun a generational shift that has taken on a different attitude toward cities.

Yeah there are more mods out for the first game, it helps a lot.

How's this for a"random visualization"? Currently in the process of building an accurate model of Cleveland in Cities Skylines using a map overlay, topographic data, and infinite money. Can't expand city limits any further, so the map stretches from about W 53rd to E 105th, and just past Union to the south. Fitting highway, street, transit and freight infrastructure within the limits of the game is proving cumbersome, but I've come up with some workarounds that should suffice. The goal is to build out a base model that I can use to test out different ideas and play around with the simulated traffic, zoning, and taxes. With some custom assets and graphics this could also be a cool way to visualize future buildings and projects. Honestly just started this when I got bored this summer, but I'll be working on it on and off. I might try and find a way to share the save file if anyone wants to mess around with it themselves.

I was in shaker square earlier today and they had signs up for this, I was honestly pretty confused.

Doan St—I looked it up. That would also be a cool nod to Doan's Corners

Emphasis on "sort-of. " There's an important distinction between "urban area parks" and large urban area parks (and the entire question of whether fewer, larger parks are preferable to much more frequent, smaller parks of higher quality and usefulness). Smaller public spaces can easily be created from vacant land (eg. Asiatown and Midtown popup parks), demolished urban blocks (most notably The Mall/Group Plan but also numerous parklets and plazas), former rail rights of way (Red Line Greenway and proposed Low Line path), and even small unoccupied pieces of land (Lighthouse Park). And large parks can still be created despite existing population density: Dike 14 (Lakefront Nature Preserve) added 88 acres of fill on Lake Erie. CHEERS would add even more. Some land is also simply not fit to develop: Burke could probably never be developed with dense urbanism; the steep slopes of Irishtown Bend made future development unlikely as well. Jane Jacobs popularly wrote that the most useful parks are those directly surrounded by residential and other uses. Parks need to have users as well as reasons for people to use them–and what's the point of escaping the city when there is no city to escape? Cleveland is "under-parked," but adding new parks where there are none would add much more value than eliminating urban blocks to expand existing ones. I think the Canal Basin redesign looks great but the parking lots and "open space" south of the bridge seem like they could be better utilized.

And most of these purchases would be taking place whether they were legally facilitated or not. This way, at least there's major tax revenue coming in (Ohio marijuana sales have hit $100M in two months) But to keep things mildly on topic, dispensaries look a lot nicer to visitors than drug dealers hanging out around downtown.

I was trying to decide how to feel about this proposal but I think this is a good point. The design looks incredible but it probably doesn't need to be as big as it is—we'll already be adding a ton of public space between Irishtown Bend and (hopefully) the new "Low Line" under the Detroit-Superior bridge. I think a little development in this part of the flats would complement the parks really nicely.