jam40jeff

Do you have no problem with monarchy then? Because that is what unrestrained capitalism devolves to. EDIT: I may be a little extreme on this one. I'll defer to this better answer: In principle, yes; but what usually happens in practice is fascism, because ownership does not easily concentrate in a single individual's hands, but much more readily concentrates in the hands of a small, wealthy, idle, privileged, parasitic elite.

And loses, losses, and loosens.

What a great program! I wish they had something like that when I started at Case (11 years ago now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

If that was meant to be ironic, I am laughing with you. If it wasn't, I'm laughing at you. Thanks for making me laugh. :) At this point, I'm always laughing at DanB. :) DanB can actually be pretty funny when he's not trying to be a d!ck. Unfortunately, that hasn't been too often lately.

Darn Ajax double posting garbage.

If that was meant to be ironic, I am laughing with you. If it wasn't, I'm laughing at you. Thanks for making me laugh. :)

I am not saying every business needs to be downtown. But they shouldn't be in Mayfield Heights. Maybe Bucyrus, or Upper Sandusky, but not Mayfield Heights. You see, back in the old days, there was a large non-urban population because there was more work on farms. Now those people live in the suburbs, where they can't work the land, but they're not close to things either (being 2 miles from the grocery store and 15 miles from work is not "close"). Although cities weren't as large, there were many small towns full of non-farmers. These towns were small cities. They were dense, you could walk anywhere to get to your basic necessities, and made it possible for efficient modes of transportation to connect them to each other and to the major cities. I have absolutely no problem with this pattern of development. The problem I have is with the suburban wasteland pattern of development, where people spread out simply because the car has made it possible. It's incredibly wasteful and is ruining the landscape of the country. As to your geener scenery comment, it also fits in with my argument below about being a result of the temporary aspects of suburbia (the people that currently live there). The reason people think it's "nicer" has much more to do with the upkeep (mainly due to being newer) than anything about the design, layout, or achitecture. When suburbs become rundown, they are generally regarded to be far uglier than rundown areas of the city. And fixed up areas are nearly always regarded to be much nice than newer, "nice" suburban areas. Your reasons for suburbia being "awesome" all revolve around the people that had the means to flee there. If instead, those people had worked to make neighborhoods in the city better, you may see a different pattern, such as you do in many European cities, where crime is higher and schools are worse in the outlying areas than in the central city itself (Paris, for example). Your argument is like saying if we took the 5,000 smartest and wealthiest people in the whole country, subsidized their move to the middle-of-nowhere Mississippi and built some new style of development, that the fact that the development has smart and wealthy people and a low crime rate proves it's the best kind of development.

I also think it would drive home the most important point (at least to me). Yes, it may take you a little longer (at first at least) to get there by train, but you don't have to drive. 5 hours working/sleeping/relaxing/eating/drinking is more productive than 4 hours driving plus 1 hour working/sleeping/relaxing/eating/drinking.

Yes, mostly because government policies from WWII on have actually made it cheapier and easier to build new junk on farmland. Suburbs are still If Cleveland was at maximum capacity then I can see their purpose. It sure isn't. Suburbs are inherently a paradox (close but not too close). If they don't want to be in Cleveland, why don't these companies just relocate to Hopedale, Ohio. Oh, that's right, they want to be part of the Cleveland region, but not really. And we've paid for the miles and miles and lanes and lanes of congested highways for them to be able to afford to do this. And who does it help? The workers that have to drive in rush hour traffic to work? So they can see a fake pond, walking trail, and parking lot out their window (or nearest window to their cubicle)? Or the CEO that cut his travel time from his wooded mansion by 15 minutes? Moving these companies downtown IS a net gain for the region, even if small. If we don't want our region to be centralized, why have a region at all? We might as well just evenly distribute companies throughout the entire country.

I wouldn't consider the Cleveland stop very "usable" because there are two trains arriving/leaving it in each direction (Capitol Limited - Chicago to DC, and Lake Shore Limited - Chicago to NYC), and their arrival/departure times are all between 2:30 am and 5:05 am. Ridiculous. I can't even take the rapid to or from the station because the Waterfront Line doesn't run at those hours (actually the last time I came back from Chicago the train was a little late arriving in Cleveland and I waited in the station for an hour for the first Waterfront Line train to come).

I think it's still poaching. But I don't care so much in this direction. I will repeat: I believe it is still a small net gain for companies to gather around a strong downtown rather than remain spread about the outer ring suburbs. I don't care for any type of poaching, but I can excuse the return to downtown paching more than the other way around. I know you think this is hypocritical, but I think it's karma. The suburbs only exist because they have poached from the central cities. They are not stand-alone cities (ala Akron, Youngstown, Canton, Toledo, Sandusky, Mansfield, etc.), but leeches that simply exist to spread things out. A complete waste of people's time and energy consumption.

I agree with you that a company moving from another region would obviously be much bigger news. However, I believe it is still a small net gain for companies to gather around a strong downtown rather than remain spread about the outer ring suburbs. I don't care for any type of poaching, but I can excuse the return to downtown paching more than the other way around. I know you think this is hypocritical, but I think it's karma. The suburbs only exist because they have poached from the central cities. They are not stand-alone cities (ala Akron, Youngstown, Canton, Toledo, Sandusky, Mansfield, etc.), but leeches that simply exist to spread things out. A complete waste of people's time and energy consumption.

I would take those odds. I have worked in three offices, and in every one there have been a substantial number of people commuting from the opposite side of town (and even some from Warren and Canton). I have not known a single person that has moved closer to their workplace at any of the places I have worked. Weren't you the one saying most people aren't very mobile? Why then should they have to move to Mayfield Heights for the job? And wouldn't it make sense to move to an area where there are many possible places of employment if you are choosing to live near where you work (a smart move)? Wouldn't centralizing office in downtown allow people to not have to move if they need to change jobs and still wish to be close to work? Downtown Cleveland has far more employment opportunities than Mayfield Heights. Besides the fact that a Mayfield Heights office makes it nearly impossible for any employees to commute to work because they can't or don't wish to drive. And if people moved to Mayfield Heights to be close to work, can't they now move to Cleveland to be close to work? And the added bonus is that they'll have more opportunities to change jobs and still be close to work in the future.

It absolutely is the economy causign the delays, but I fully understand the frustrations with how this project began. It was a shame to see some successful businesses forced to move or go out of business, only to have a huge vacant lot at a busy intersection that may stay that way for years. Also, to nitpick BizBiz, Cedar and Warrensville is 8.4 miles to Public Square driving (a little less as the crow flies), not 15 miles east of downtown.

This is the idea of centralization. If you weight where the people in the region live, the "middle point" would be near downtown Cleveland. Beyond this, downtown has more options for getting to work (car/train/bus). Thus, all things considered, some people's commutes will no doubt be shortened and some lengthened by the move downtown, but there will be more options for getting to work and the optimal location for all involved is a central location. Anything other than that is just being selfish and wishing the company stayed one mile from your house and everyone else had to drive a half hour to get to work. Of course, you also may see people deciding to move back towards the city when it comes time to choose a new place to live (when the suburban cardboard box reaches its 15 year life span), and total commute time for the entire office will drop dramatically.

And this is because these suburbs grew out of Cleveland. Thus, without Cleveland being at full capacity, there is no rational reason for these places to have businesses. It just spreads the employment centers out, causing people to have longer dirves to work and makes public transportation that much more difficult to implement effectively.

Apparently you missed the part where he said Main St. was the Vegas strip compared to other areas of Buffalo. I'm sure if they had simply added another lane to the road instead of a rail line Buffalo would be a vibrant city today. As a matter of fact, ask Detroit's 7- and 9-lane avenues how that has worked out. Don't put words in people's mouths. I have heard nobody heard claim rail to be the silver bullet for any city. But there is no doubt that almost without exception it provides an economic boost to areas it travels through.

Oops. I think I called you that on here once. Sorry! I dont mind when women say it. (honestly, I kinda like it) It's the desperate and h---y men that irrate me. No wonder you got so irritated when EVD called you Papi! :)

I completely disagree. Why would it have worked for nearly 100 million (around 1910), but can't work for 300 million? There would be 3 times as many potential craftsmen, etc. The reason it doesn't work has nothing to do with the population, but the fact that we have figured out how to lower prices with economies of scale, and most people deem the loss of customer service and (often times) quality to be worth that lower price (boo).

There are places (such as the one on Huron), but I wouldn't say there's an abundance.

If it's fine, then shouldn't we allow our preferred mode of travel to be available (and subsidized) as yours is?

"Look at what I just found in my anus!"

Why does everyone continue this pointless argument and ignore the essence of it (BuckeyeB's post)?

I'll go on record as saying I'm a huge fan off "off balance" stores, but not of the Volk's variety. It has the type of personality we don't need more of.

Do you speak from personal experience? R&R may not agree. :)