jam40jeff

Let me rephrase that: After all, it seems silly we've done and spent so much to make our world revolve around the automobile in this country. Get our children back on their own two feet.

Thanks for clarifying my comments, KJP, and reminding me why you write for the paper and I write C# code. :-P

I disagree, because not everyone is able to use it the same amount. Besides, the costs are much less apparent. Do you have any idea what the true cost is of maintaining the roads you drive on? Why aren't private roads possible? If privately owned railroads are possible, there is no reason roads couldn't be as well. It's just that we're not used to the idea. Doesn't make it impossible.

This is KJP you're talking about, he would probably not only pay for his own, but pay for everyone's else's public transportation if he could. :) Seriously, though, I think the reason he advocates public funding for transportation is because the balance has been thrown so out of whack with sprawl-inducing policies now for 60 years that there needs to be a sort of "mass transportation affirmative action" to get things back in check. And it's called public transportation because it is mass transportation for the public. It does not have to be funded publicly (for a long time passenger rail was run privately). It's been a loooong time since automobile infrastructure was privately owned. No...they were stupid if they didn't capitalize on the free money the government was throwing out there for new construction and policies that made it feasible to develop land in these areas. Refer to previous post for explanation on the different between subsidized and market demand. Assuming individual preferences are to actually live in the suburbs (which is obviously true for some, but I'll get to that below), the question at hand is whether or not the government can dictate to people what to do when their individual preferences and the good of society collide. The question is NOT if it is bad for society. There is overwhelming evidence that the lifestyle is a detriment to society as a whole. You can think what you want, but saying you will *never* think otherwise, especially with all the facts that have presented, is pretty thick-skulled. I completely disagree. I think that many people living in a suburb would love to either (a) live in a rural area or (b) live in a city if the landscape of the country were different. But thanks to the way this country has developed since WWII, many urban areas are centers of crime and poverty, and there is no transportation other than the car for those in rural areas. The suburb has become the compromise for people. A few times, while walking through Ohio City with people who live in the exurbs, I have heard comments about how beautiful the area is and how it feels like a real neighborhood and how they miss being able to live in areas like that. Then they ask about crime and where you send your kids to school. These are variables that can (and do) change. They do take time, but not as much time as the hundreds of years it has taken to create unique built environments. It's just that the perception (unfortunately many times correct) is that these environments are currently associated with bad things which drive families away. These factors aren't constrained to cities for any reason, however, and what will people do when the problems make it out their way? They will keep moving further out...we have already seen that. That pattern can only hang on for so long. The main point is that people like suburbs for many reasons other than a big yard and house. These have just become synonymous with wealth, safety, and good public schools for many. "Some will sell their dreams for small desires Or lose the race to rats Get caught in ticking traps And start to dream of somewhere To relax their restless flight Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights"

No, the market price is not the subsidized price. They are polar opposites. CMHA homes are subsidized. They surely are not market rate. They are available for a lower price because the government subsidizes it. Of course *someone* (or everyone) is paying for it, but the true cost isn't represented by the costs incurred by the individual. This is the same concept for transportation. If you want to see market rate suburbanization, the first step of many would be to have heavy fees for drivers' pollution "costs", make ALL roads private/toll roads, have the government completely duck out of the gasoline business, and make each individual pay for the infrastructure needed to support their utilities. Do you think it costs the same amount to wire up urban areas for electricity and cable TV as it does in the middle of nowhere? Yet all of us in Northeast Ohio have pretty much the same rate for these services, so we are paying for the infrastructure to support the middle of Geauga County. There are hundreds more examples, but this should give you an idea of what subsidized cost is.

Also, Sandy Springs was never part of Atlanta. Altanta proper has always been a relatively small land area and has not annexed much. I think Buckhead (in 1952) was the last major annexation. They wanted to annex Sandy Springs, but Sandy Springs always resisted (and finally incorporated very recently). Many highly populated (but not dense) areas around Atlanta are not incorporated, such as between Marietta and Sandy Springs and along I-85 northeast of I-285. The city of Atlanta lost 70,000 (over 15%) of its population from 1960 to 2000 while the metro area grew from 1.31 million to 4.11 million people (yeah...wow). That is sprawl. However, since 2000 estimates place Atlanta's proper as actually gaining 70,000 residents, although also in that time the metro area is estimated to have grown by another 1.3 million people to 5.41 million (yeah...double wow). So I *guess* you could call that simply growth, although they sure haven't done anything to keep sprawl in check. There definitely is more of an urbanism movement in Atlanta now than 5 years ago, however.

Ummm.....14-lane I-75 freeway probably wasn't cheap.

If anyone is looking for a nice bouquet of roses that won't break the bank (like most florists) I am very happy with what I picked up yesterday after work at The Fresh Market (in Shaker Heights right at the end of the blue line rapid). They are very reasonable, but nicer than the supermarket flowers, the woman who arranges them makes them look wonderful (at least she's been there the last two years when I picked up bought my flowers there), and they also have a nice assortment of vases to choose from, not just those bland glass ones many places have. DISCLAIMER: I am in no way affiliated with The Fresh Market. :)

I see your point. I guess that I just can't get over the fact that it doesn't appeal aesthetically to me, but I can see the purpose for others who would enjoy it as a walking/jogging/biking/etc. pathway without having to worry about street crossings, etc. yet still being in the heart of the city. Maybe it will grow on me.

I don't mean isolated from the city as in far away...I mean as in going long stretches without any access to anything. It seems like you can walk a whole block many times without the option to stop off and shop/leave the park/take a side street/enter a building/catch a bus/etc.

Not to be a Debbie Downer here, but I'm not really a fan of this project. I think light rail would be a much better use, especially given the void of other rail transportation in that part of Manhattan. Also, I think it is too long and isolated...It doesn't seem to have much of an interaction with the surroundings like a street-level park would. I would feel trapped up there...not so much from a safety perspective (even if it is kept extremely safe) I would just feel trapped from accessing the rest of my surroundings in the same way that walking past poorly designed buildings (or large gaps between buildings) does in most cities. In most places of Manhattan, you don't get that feeling at all, but it seems that way from what I've seen in the photos. Furthermore, I know aesthetics are subjective, but I think the thing is ugly as sin. For some reason, it reminds me of a brutalist style (even though I know it's not...maybe it's all the concrete they're putting in up there). The Hotel Standard is cool in a way, but as soon as the novelty wears off, I think it will be dated in the same bad way that 60s buildings are dated. Anyways, at least it is more green space without sacrificing density, and I hope all the best comes out of it because Manhattan truly is a wonderful place. You just will find me in other parts of Manhattan when I'm there. 8-)

Two guys in double figures tonight....geeeeezzzzz

True, I say pay off bills, but most of it'll probably end up at Johnny Mango and Hecks.

Or until they realize they could live close enough to walk/ride transit to work and save 70 miles per day, 350 miles per week, 18,200 miles per year. With a car that gets 25 mpg, that's $200 of gas per month, let alone insurance rates, repairs, possible tickets, etc. People really have no idea the true cost of owning a car (and driving it a lot).

Exactly...my point was that what could make the country as a whole make more money is not always moral or good for the whole of society. Anyways...back on topic... I will be paying off my engagement ring and for my wedding (getting married this summer). Unfortunately, I'll need more help than the stimulus check. :)

Yes, please clarify MTS. Some of us must be out of the loop here.

Hopefully this foreclosure mess will clear itself up in another year or so and these retail projects will start plowing ahead again. Yes, the Avenue District has two wings, but of course, they are only going to be built if there is shown to be demand for them.

Remember, the Clinic owns that land.

Can I rent at a discount your $425K condo you just received?

It's hard to believe that this is what has become of the what was the most dense intersection in Cleveland's second downtown:

Of course...we get a great win (and Lebron has a great dunk in the game, too) but they have to make sure Orlando gets on the highlight reel. The real highlight of the game for me, though, was when Ira Newble hit a three. That guy is amazing when he makes a shot. It's like he bends the space-time continuum or something...the ball just should not be able to go through the hoop when it's rocketed at such a flat angle.

I was going to compliment the cool picture they took of E. 4th (I really like that shot) and then I realized they ganked it off of clevelandskyscrapers.com: I hope you got paid MayDay! :) That's a great photo.

If you're on the east side, I believe there's a parking lot right on the edge of the Lake in Fairport Harbor...although don't count on anything else to do there, really. I can't think of much else east of downtown where there would be access for a car to get close to the water unless you go all the way to Geneva (a couple beautiful stretches along SR 531 between Geneva-on-the-Lake and Saybrook Township) or Ashtabula (Walnut Beach, Ashtabula Harbor, Lakefront Park). West of downtown Edgewater or Huntington is probably your best bet, but I can't guarantee you as much privacy there. :wink: Does anyone know about Huron or Vermillion, I seem to remember some waterfront lots in Huron, and I've never spent much time in Vermilion.

In theory, supply-side tax cuts are good for the economy. In practice, they work about as well as Communism, especially in this day and age of the ever-widening income gap. Which brings me to my other point...what's good for the economy as a whole sometimes is NOT good for the people. As an extreme example, slavery was good for the economy. Raising the per capita GDP a dollar does most of the people no good if the top 1% go from controlling 20% of the wealth to 80% of the wealth. Yes, I realize these are extreme examples...my point is simply to show to those who always scream "it's better for the economy" that it's not always better for a majority of the people. Sometimes good for the economy is good, but sometimes it's just a wealthy Republican ploy trying to get you to buy into their selfish "Get Myself Richer" plan.

I really liked the food at Zocalo (especially the nachos), but I didn't care for the margaritas. Other than being way too expensive, they had a very small amount of tequila in them and not the best taste. I drank a bunch (we had a few pitchers for 4 people and I had the most) and didn't even get a buzz. Maybe it was just who was making them that day. :|