jam40jeff

I think you'll be against it then. I envision this thing turning out even worse than Chester, and I doubt you'd consider that as a Main Street. But I think you'd be in the minority in being against it. You're fooling yourself if you don't think most people from outside the city limits want this thing to be as close to a freeway as possible.

Are they funding it? And who do you think carries the most influence with high-ranking government officials. I highly doubt the opinions of those who do not own cars weigh too much on their minds. My main problem is that ERocc keeps pounding home the "different ideas on how people should live" comment, without realizing that many people view suburbanites' way of living as just another "different idea on how people should live" as well. It's a two way street. I believe at one point he even went as far as to equate those who support urban development with radical Muslims. Do I even need to go into how ridiculous that is?

This design pattern is very prevalent in some of the most highly planned and desirable places to live in the country. I'm thinking places like Irvine, CA. Lots of 50 MPH boulevards (definitely not "highways", despite the speed limit) with very dense housing immediately adjacent behind barriers/landscaping. Not a model used much here in Ohio (at least not that I'm aware of, since we don't actually plan much of anything), but obviously extremely successful at what it's trying to accomplish. And in practice just about the opposite of "forbidding" or "dead" or "separating". In fact, extremely inviting and walkable/bikeable. Not to say that this pattern is necessarily appropriate in this case (or that they're really even trying to use it), but it definitely can work really well. Work really well? http://goo.gl/maps/M3DRn How does that work really well? It works well for the people who live there. For those with different ideas of how people should live, it may not. Just as your ideas of how we all should have to live may not work either. Maybe this "works" in a suburban area, but do people living in the city want it? Why should suburbanites get to ram their ways down the throats of those living in the city?

This design pattern is very prevalent in some of the most highly planned and desirable places to live in the country. I'm thinking places like Irvine, CA. Lots of 50 MPH boulevards (definitely not "highways", despite the speed limit) with very dense housing immediately adjacent behind barriers/landscaping. Not a model used much here in Ohio (at least not that I'm aware of, since we don't actually plan much of anything), but obviously extremely successful at what it's trying to accomplish. And in practice just about the opposite of "forbidding" or "dead" or "separating". In fact, extremely inviting and walkable/bikeable. Not to say that this pattern is necessarily appropriate in this case (or that they're really even trying to use it), but it definitely can work really well. Work really well? http://goo.gl/maps/M3DRn How does that work really well? It absolutely is "separating", "dead", and "forbidding" for anyone that is not driving a car. That might as well be a freeway. Would you walk on that sidewalk with cars whizzing past you at 50+ MPH inches away, a wall on the other side, no eyes on the street, no street lights, and absolutely no destinations in sight to walk to? And the walls are pretty much the definition of separating. Imagine living right across that street from a friend and trying to walk to their house. You'd probably half to walk over a mile and still cross a busy 5-lane 45 MPH speed limit road. I think this pattern is an extreme example of what is wrong with auto-centric development.

The Acacia one should definitely come down, but the Edgewater Park chain link fence needs to stay. Not because of the Shoreway, but because it's the West Side. :P

Nor is there one at Playhouse Square. These are the urban versions of Deer Lick Estates, Hunter's Hollow, Cookie Cutter Corners, etc. :) Same with Shaker Square...it should really be Shaker Octagon. :P

There are a bunch of examples where a focal point is the name of an entire neighborhood in Chicago. Lincoln Park, Lincoln Square, Wrigleyville, Garfield Park, Douglas Park, Homan Square, etc.

It shows up right on their profile:

The one in Mentor often times says $149 or $169. I don't know if I've ever seen it above $189.

The tweet wasn't deleted. I still see it up.

Outrageous. And how many vehicles do these bypasses see a day? 5000? Yeah, that's way more worth it than a train connecting the three largest cities.

He didn't "follow up" on any of it because the economy collapsed in 2008-2009 as he was trying to find tenants and financing for his project in DT Cleveland. It's in the "Pesht" thread in the Abandoned Developments forum. His "big game" was a great idea and he even gained sight control of a few DT parking lots, but he was unlucky in his timing. This Portage Crossing development even took 5 years to come to fruition. I know the full story. I just don't believe any of his spiel that he is actually committed to any sort of urban development like he once claimed. Somehow Ari Maron has managed. Even The Coral Co. has done much more urban development than Bob Stark. Nope, I think he's just another upscale strip plaza developer. Don't get me wrong, this redevelopment is much better than greenfield development, but the typed of Bob Stark developments we're seeing are quite different from the ones he led us to believe he wanted to be involved in 8 years ago.

I think they're made of cardboard and serve Kraft Mac N Cheese for room service.

My complaint isn't with this development. It's with the fact that Bob Stark only does auto-centric suburban development, even though not too long ago he talked a big game about how he wanted to do a huge urban project in Cleveland and then never followed up on any of it.

I was mainly talking about all of his previous developments as I'm not too familiar with this one. I took a look at the website, and if developed as planned, it would be his most urban development I've seen (I don't consider islands in a sea of parking and sprawl like Crocker Park to be urban), which isn't saying much considering that it looks like surface parking still covers more sq ft than building space.

Wasn't Bob Stark going to be the hero that redevelops all the surface lots in downtown Cleveland and gave a huge speech on how important urban design is? Yeah, he's full of b/s. He's right up there with the worst of the worst as far as sprawl development goes.

There's more to a grocery store than just produce. Heinen's carries many products that Giant Eagle doesn't. Their customer service is much better. Their stores are cleaner. Their prepared foods are waaaaaaay better. I could go on. Anyway, I will say that produce is one thing I haven't been real happy with lately there, but we get most of our produce from either the Fresh Fork Market CSA or Whole Foods.

Heinen's is nicer than Giant Eagle and carriers a better selection of upscale products, but for everything else I think their prices are no higher than Giant Eagle and sometimes even less. We shop mostly at Heinen's, and we sure aren't eating "tofu chicken" or anything like that.

There are many schools listed as Cincinnati which are not in the city proper. I think it's because there are a lot of unincorporated areas bordering Cincinnati, whereas there are none bordering Cleveland. EDIT: Never mind, I should have read Clevelander17's post first. Also, this means that Cleveland actually ranks ahead of Cinicnnati both in metor and city rankings (we have St. Ignatius at #24 and Glenville at #90). Not that this list couldn't be placed in the dumb-a$$ rankings thread...

Are you suggesting that we just don't build anything new so that people wanting a new place have to move out of Cuyahoga County and accelerate the decline in population (and open up a new vacancy anyway)?

As someone that likes sports, I can see where an acre lot would be nice for small kids to be able to play catch, have a basketball hoop, etc. But in a dense area, that's what the neighborhood park is for. And most new developments I have seen have so much grading between lots that the usable area doesn't really allow for any of these activities anyway. Besides, the oversized house plus oversized garage plus oversized driveway plus overdone landscaping takes up a large portion of the 1/4 to 1/3 acre lots. Many backyards in Ohio City have as much contiguous usable space than many of these new suburban lots.

...safety (perceived or real), desire for socioeconomic homogeneity, feeling of living the "American dream", liking anything shiny and new, stability of property values (perceived or real), keeping up with the Joneses, etc.

You keep saying this as if it's fact, but how do you explain the townhome, condo, and even SFH developments in some of the sprawlburbs which have tiny lots (and in many cases, smallish living spaces)?

Also interesting that the article mentioned Whole Foods as being interested in opening a location in downtown Cleveland. By the way, Google Street View around 360 degrees the intersection where Detroit has a (near) downtown Whole Foods and tell me downtown Cleveland doesn't have WAYYYY better locations than that for Whole Foods to open.

This.