jam40jeff

Norcross is close and definitely a suburb of Atlanta. Atlanta is sprawling and should inlucde much more land in its MSA than Cleveland. But I am referring more to places like Jasper, Georgia in Pickens County. 65 miles away and not suburban in nature at all. The fact that that is included in the Atlanta MSA while Twinsburg is not included in the Cleveland MSA is an absolute joke.

Good point. Akron needs to be included. Other metro areas are looked at like that...this one should be. This is a region of cities all stitched together forming one giant quiltwork of economic interdependence. Greater Cleveland needs to include Akron too... Exactly. Places like Twinsburg, Macedonia, and Richfield are much more Cleveland suburbs than Akron suburbs, but since they're in Summit County, they are not a part of Cleveland's MSA. This is ridiculous. Cities like Atlanta have far off farm-towns 3 counties away included. The Census Bureau needs to recognize (1) that county lines aren't the only or most accurate way to draw these boundaries and (2) that some cities can function as suburbs of two core cities at once.

Your ankles are as wide as your hips? Unpossible!

They always wear them with pea coats too. Looks super lame. Another thing I hate is people who wear sunglasses indoors. I don't think I've ever seen a guy wearing skinny jeans with a peacoat. Are you thinking of straight-leg jeans?

Great news! It'll fit right into the area, with a nice transition into the Arcade. I had dessert and a martini there the Friday before Christmas. The martini was good (and pretty strong) and my chocolate strawberry crepe was pretty good. Not the best crepe I've had around Cleveland (Le Petit Triangle takes that award) but it was pretty good, albeit a little expensive ($8.99 I believe, but pretty big). The service was very good, but there also weren't very many people there.

If this was the case I think he'd be getting more PT this season... obviously there is something that he isn't getting at the pro level... You are probably right but coaches aren't always perfect evaluators of talent. Case in point: using Jamal Lewis as your primary running back all year until he got hurt. He's too old and slow to be anything but a change of pace/power running back now.

Yes, he hurt his ankle during the game. But we really haven't used him much all season. Hopefully he gets more into the mix next season.

That is a good question. Will certain routes (especially west side routes such as the 22, 25, 81, 26, and some of the east side routes such as the 1 and 3) be rerouted to terminate at (or at least pass by) the new transit center?

I think we're a lot better with Jerome Harrison as our primary RB. I've been hoping for that move for over a year now. Too bad it took Jamal Lewis getting injured for the Browns to make that move. Also, I'd like to see them use Brian Robiskie more. He may not be the quickest receiver of the crew (although he's not slow by any means), but he has great hands, runs good routes, and blocks very well.

Because the monument is (1) much more than a mound of dirt and (2) is much narrower, blocking a lot less. Besides, I personally just think the mound will look ugly and fake, like something you'd see around a retention basin or next to the checkers board at Crocker Park. It surely wouldn't fit into what was designed as a New England-style town center.

Sorry, I did have my Indy terms mixed up, I meant Monument Circle. Fountain Square is where the duck pin bowling is, right? I still maintain that the "square about" could work if people were committed to making it happen. The traffic counts really aren't very high, and there are plenty of alternative routes traffic could be diverted to (E. 9, St. Clair, W. Huron, W. Prospect, etc.).

The traffic counts for Public Square are very similar to Fountain Square in Indianapolis. Why does it work there? As far as the busses go, maybe we could have one unified bus pull-off area (west side of square?) where busses have a lane to pull off and idle and people can wait for busses. I would also make Frankfort go onto E. 2nd and cut off access to the square from those streets. Maybe even have lights to control access onto the square like the control lights on Mayfield Road in Little Italy. (The traffic counts for the square are lower than Mayfield Road in this section.) Or Lights in between merges on the circle itself. Or maybe the new traffic pattern will encourage increased pedestrain activity and less vehicle activity. Or maybe some of the busses could be diverted to other roads. Or some of the traffic. Or both. I don't have all the answers, but I have a lot of ideas, and I figure there have to be better ones out there! :)

Out of the 3 plans presented, I think that #2 would be the best. #1 is dumb IMO (squares still fully divided, framing ugly and block the architectural beauty surrounding the square). #3 is radical and different, but has too many problems for my liking. The sidewalks on the hills will be tough to keep safe in the winter, and having a big artificial hill right in the middle of downtown blocking views of buildings seems really strange (and ugly) to me. The street-level rendering just confirms that to me. It looks like someone plopped a Chuck E. Cheese-style sledding hill in the middle of downtown and it's blocking the beautiful buildings. #2 at least feels like a compromise of what we really want instead of a poor attempt at the best of both worlds. Whoever brought up Fountain Square in Indianapolis had some very good points. I would like to see the outer roadways handle all of the traffic. I actually think this would IMPROVE the traffic flow through the area (and possibly encourage people to use other parallel roads who are simply travelling through from one side to the other). Right now, we have an astonishing 8 intersections in Public Square. EIGHT INTERSECTIONS. And 6 of the 8 have traffic lights! That is ridiculous and surely does not lend to either good traffic flow, a good park, or good pedestrain flow. As it is, traffic travelling through Public Square on either Superior or Ontario must encounter 3 traffic lights. Traffic travelling from Euclid onto Superior westbound must encounter 4 (and usually stop at nearly every one of them). Traffic turning left, must go one quarter around the square to the right, then turn left, encountering 4 lights (or 5 if going from Ontario to Superior westbound, which could be averted anyway by using Prospect or Huron). Even traffic turning right must encounter 2 or 3 lights. So the arguments about traffic don't make sense to me. It really doesn't seem like it could be much worse than it already is (which isn't bad due to the fact that it doesn't seem an outrageous number of cars pass through on these streets). We could have one traffic "circle" (or squarish circle with slightly rounded corners) and have 5 or 6 merge points (depending on what you do with Frankfort/E. 2nd) with no traffic lights. Pave with brick, narrow lanes (or don't paint them at all), encourage traffic calming, and I think you'd see a slower, but steadier flow of traffic through the area, which would mesh better with the pedestrains and leave the entire center open for the park area while actually seeing an overall improvement in traffic flow (although ODOT seems to think that travelling at high speeds, then waiting at traffic lights is for some reason preferrable to slow and steady traffic). I also am a big fan of moving the Soldiers and Sailors Monument to the center of the park in this configuration, especially since the parkland would be large enough (approximately 6 to 7 acres) to still feel usable all around the monument. I know the arguments will be about changing the configuration of Superior and traffic flow, etc. But I must ask, how is it that Superior then was reduced to one through lane of traffic east of the square? Did this have an adverse effect on traffic? It still seems fine to me. I can't believe that the traffic flow is heavy enough that a traffic circle wouldn't work here. If the traffic were heavy, the current inefficient configuration would be a nightmare. I think the traffic "problems" around Public Square are overestimated, and that projections of what effect eliminating traffic through the square would have don't take into account the efficiencies of a smooth flowing traffic circle and some traffic being diverted to parallel roads.

I like spicy, but there's more to flavor than spicy. Of course, I guess you could argue that in the fast food world, though, there isn't more to flavor than spicy and salty.

Don't foget Panera. To many people's surprise, it is one of the worst fast food chains with regard to fat content, calories, and (especiaily) sodium.

That is exactly what I had in mind (just like Dupont Circle). Connecticut and Superior are almost identical in widths of right-of-way. (Actually, I believe Superior might be about 10 feet wider, which could provide the same lane configuration and 5 extra feet of sidewalk on each side.) I know DC has other circle which are similar, but I believe Dupont Circle is the largest of these, and yet is still smaller than Public Square. The tunnel under Public Square would only have to be about 90 feet longer (~540 as opposed to ~450) than the tunnel under Dupont Circle.

I think most people consider anything west of the river to be the westside down to about Brecksville, although I think of anything between Macedonia and Strongsville as being more the south side than anything.

That was similar to my proposal I think I wrote up on one of the threads here a while ago (probably a couple years). I think Ontario should be cut off, and Superior go under Public Square. See DC for example of how this could work. One outer lane on each side of the road could enter the square and stay at street level, while the inner lanes could dip down under the entire square (including the outer roadways). For example, Dupont Circle in DC: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=washington,+dc&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.956293,114.169922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Washington,+District+of+Columbia&ll=38.908013,-77.042392&spn=0.023677,0.055747&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.908136,-77.042497&panoid=gMPqg5cXa5guaIggpC7jAQ&cbp=12,333.15,,0,6.32 Also, as far as the federal routes go, isn't Ontario also a US route (422) coming from the south and terminating at Superior?

Haha, those were my exact thoughts when I saw the pictures. At least this modern church has some architectural value (albeit not in a style I like).

Streetsboro is actually just about the same distance from Mentor as Parma. (I believe you said at one point that you were from Mentor.)

Where's that pervert graphic? :)

Yeah, I tend to get too heated about food. It's a pet peeve of mine. I can't believe our society has become so careless (and carefree) about what they put into their body.

And that's your business, why? Because people are complaining about a fast food restaurant choosing not to serve food one day a week. No business is under any obligation to provide anyone else anything. Even food. And not eating so much fast food might help our obesity problem as well. I said "our" because it really does affect us all.

Agreed. Yeah ... Chick-fil-la is just good. However, I have a huge respect for a company that mandates a day off to spend with family/friends - no matter how "inconvenient" it might be for diners. Other retailers should take note. And maybe diners should decide to cook their own food one day a week! It'd be a lot healthier than eating that fast food sh!t for every meal. And, yes, it's pretty much all sh!t.