Vincent_G

Thanks, MayDay!

Oakwood is zoned for large-lot single-family residential, but I would say a large-lot, single-family residential development is unlikely there.

KJP, I worry that you are taking something personally that maybe you should not be. The issue of ability to provide police services should be central to any discussion of a merger of municipalities or sharing of services, and Hts121 is very correct in stating that it is unfair to compare Cleveland police to suburban police in general. That doesn't mean there are no internal problems with the Cleveland police department--far from it--but your comment about the police being notoriously lazy was a bit broad and certainly not one that is beyond challenge by virtue of your 20 years as a journalist.

I think what happens in East Cleveland, as with any other patch of Greater Cleveland, should be what is determined to be best for the people who live in East Cleveland. There are other options to consider besides merging the city with either of its bordering municipalities or splitting it up between them. One would be contracting with one of the neighboring municipalities to provide services that it has trouble providing on its own or cooperating on problems that cross the artificial borders between the municipalities. An example is the joint revitalization effort now underway in North Coventry, a beleaguered neighborhood of two-family homes and apartment buildings that is partly in EC and partly in CH. Also, it's not a simple consideration to determine which municipal entity, Cleveland or Cleveland Heights, is the stronger. Cleveland certainly has many more resources in terms of commercial property value, for example, but day-to-day services are provided at a higher level in Cleveland Heights. While I think it's dysfunctional that Cuyahoga County is divided into 59 municipalities, I doubt we are on the verge of a mass merger of any kind, unless it were to be imposed by the state. The importance of a healthy City of Cleveland cannot be understated, but I can also understand why any other municipality would be hesitant to become a part of it at this point in time. While I love the idea of Cleveland Heights legally being a part of Cleveland, I hate to think of how low a priority my troubled neighborhood on the north side of Cleveland Heights would be if it were part of Cleveland. At the same time, as someone who works in Cleveland, I think it's fair that I pay taxes to both cities. The city income tax is one reason Cleveland is not in the fiscally poor condition of many similar cities in other states. I think the best hope for a step toward metropolitan government in our region is with our new charter county government, which has the ability to offer services to municipalities that the municipalities, including Cleveland, have difficulty providing on their own.

Comments like this make streetcar supporters seem like a myopic bunch. To broadly dismiss older people (the younger people of the relatively recent past), poor people, and workers in the trades (some of whom were until recently at work building the streetcar) is absurd. These are all groups of people that would benefit from the streetcar itself and the stronger public transit system that the streetcar would build support for. If the streetcar has been promoted only as a tool for attracting younger professionals (the older professionals of the not-too-distant future), it's no wonder it hasn't achieved broader support. It makes the streetcar seem like a frivolity for the entertainment of the sought after and the entitled, rather than a good way for many different kinds of people to get around.

Something I haven't seen addressed is what will happen to the streetcar infrastructure that is already in place if the project is cancelled, especially in the areas where the work is only partially completed and the streets are torn up. Is there a plan? I assume there is no plan, but the costs of putting the streets back into a usable condition should also be considered in any cost analysis.

What do you mean by ALL rail projects in Citi? If the current one is left unfinished, there are not likely to be others.

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever, but neither does this whole situation. The voters had two previous opportunities to indirectly state their belief that downtown has had enough investment by voting against the streetcar project, and, in those situations, when the streetcar was explicitly on the ballot, they voted in favor of it. Are you the same person as DAVEINCINTI?

Even beyond the demise of the streetcar project, it is unsettling to realize that this mayor and council majority are now in charge of Cincinnati and will be for years.

If Cincinnati's streetcar line does get built, it will be not quite big enough to give the impression of a city run by a rail cult.

Why should there even be a debate now, Eighth and State? The debate took place before the city committed to and began construction on a streetcar line. Supporting the completion of this project is not indicative of a cult mentality.

I think it's unfair to say Cleveland is so far behind other places in its commitment to rail transit. If I'm not mistaken, Cleveland has had rail transit continuously in one form or another since 1860--153 years--and significant investments continue to be made in the rail system, including the recent track rebuilding projects in the airport tunnel and on the S-curve, along with recent, current, or soon-to-break-ground station rebuilding projects on all lines--at W. 65, W. 117, Puritas, E. 55, Cedar, Woodhill, and Lee-Van Aken--and the replacement of the E. 120 station with a new station at Mayfield. All of this investment would not be taking place if there were some secret plan to replace large stretches of the rail system with BRT. The recent return of the Waterfront Line to daily service is also notable. I would also like to see the rail system expanded, but taking care of the substantial rail system that we already have is also important and must take priority. Some of the recently replaced stations had been in existence since the Red Line's opening in 1955, had never had any significant upgrades throughout their existence, and were barely sufficient even when they were new. The new stations are far superior.

I understand the rage against what seems to be widespread myopia on the part of streetcar opponents, but talk of rioting is a quick way to make streetcar supporters look like a bunch of irrational malcontents. Cities are places where people will always have disagreements and where going to war with each other is not the best way to resolve such disagreements. There are many compelling arguments that can and should be made in support of finishing the streetcar project, and some of the arguments cannot be made merely in terms of money. Streetcars, like parks, bring many intangible benefits to cities. They make them more interesting, more accessible, more pleasant, etc. I'm not speaking against peaceful protest here, nor am I saying there is never a time when people have to take to the streets, but I am saying, forthrightly, that this is not one of those times.

Couldn't a special improvement district be established to support the streetcar (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1710)?

KJP's idea is worth considering. A special improvement district could be used not only to help fund the streetcar but also to show commitment from the neighborhoods that would benefit most. The idea could be used in negotiations with the city council and mayor's office, even though the first dollar a SID would produce would be years off.

Buffalo's subway line should be used as an argument for, not against, investment in rail infrastructure. Despite its detractors, it is an incredible asset to the city and region, and even many of its longtime naysayers are beginning to see that. It offers fast, frequent service, and always seems to have a lot of people taking trips on it. Despite being known as a train to nowhere, it does connect many destinations that people have reasons to travel to and from all the time. I was in Columbus this week. I had taken a Greyhound bus there from Cleveland and so didn't have my car to drive around in. I observed that, during the few hours of spare time I had, I had to choose between German Village and the Short North. However, if there had been a streetcar running on High Street, I would have been able to visit both places. I know I could have taken the COTA bus, but I didn't. It would be nice if Ohio's big cities could be thought of as interesting, readable places that outsiders could visit and make their way around in with ease. Of course the main beneficiaries of a streetcar in Columbus or Cincinnati would be the people who are there all the time.

I was disappointed to hear about another setback for the streetcar project. Cincinnati has such a cosmopolitan look and beautiful setting. It's the last place you'd imagine would have a bus-only transit system. I hope that the first phase of the streetcar will somehow survive and then, once it succeeds, lead to extensions. I remember how much opposition there was in Salt Lake City to the first light rail line, which opened just over a decade ago. Once it was up an running, though, it proved very popular, and the system has since grown into a full-blown network in a short amount of time.

Though its population is less than 35,000, Rome is the second-largest city in New York in terms of land area, covering about 75 square miles.

Thanks for posting. I really don't think Metro Rail was responsible for the decline of Main St. retail, even though many people place the blame on it. Metro stations are well positioned throughout downtown, and the subway line north of downtown connects to many important destinations, despite the beloved myth that it is a train to nowhere. It's true, as Cleburger states, that attracting jobs to Buffalo is an important task, but its economy has many prosperous segments, and the coming to life of many city neighborhoods in recent years has been remarkable. HSBC Center's evacuating tenants--primarily HSBC itself and the Philips Lytle law firm--are not leaving downtown. I worry that cars sharing the same traffic lanes as trains in downtown will cause slowdowns for riders, but we'll have to wait and see.

Beautiful. Thanks for posting.

Wow, what a beautiful place. That bridge is really something.

Those were not the same architects, but the architect of M & T Plaza was Minoru Yamasaki, who also designed the World Trade Center and Pruitt-Igoe.

That is the Johnson Museum of Art, designed by I.M. Pei and built in about 1973.

Well, Syracuse is no more cloudy than Cleveland really, which I know is not saying much. It does get a lot of snow and has had more than 200 inches in a calendar year but I don't think ever in a single winter season. The average is around 120, which I think is similar to the snow belt east of Cleveland. The really serious snow is to the north of Syracuse, in Oswego County and farther north. For years I have been a frequent traveler on the stretch of I-90 between Cleveland and Syracuse, and, in the winter, because lake-effect snow often comes in very localized bands, you can be in the clear one minute and in a blinding snowstorm the next. There have been some frightening moments. In my experience, Syracusans are more likely to complain about the snow than brag about it, but it doesn't really seem to bother anyone.

That is the Gridley Building, designed by H. N. White and dating to 1867. It is the middle building in the postcard view posted by Boreas. It had fallen into a shabby state and was almost lost during the urban renewal era. The successful effort to save it marked the beginning of the organized historic preservation movement in CNY. It is now an office building and has a restaurant on its first floor.