Avogadro

Sometimes easing access through neighborhoods can help neighborhoods.

Good question. FT was cut out for industrial use way-back-when, but not so much now for present-day industrial needs. If it isn't used for industrial, then for what will it be used? Residential would require a much higher standard to be achieved for brownfield reclamation, commercial is a non-starter, given the low density and low incomes of surrounding neighborhoods, and parkland/ecological restoration would be really great, but you would want to do it in the context of redevelopment. I personally think that six lanes is damned excessive and unnecessary, but two lanes might be too few. How about 3.5? (The original plan was for a four lane parkway, if'n I recall correctly. Isn't that what UC is doing already?

Uh, wow. That is not my argument at all. Please read what I am saying with regarding to movement of material goods, and either accept my argument or let me know if there is a more reasonable, efficient (economically and environmentally) way to move goods that cannot be transported via bus/rapid or are in quantities too small to export via rail.

By the way, I can't and won't make an argument for the OC on a congestion basis. I agree that it doesn't make any sense. To me, it only makes sense with regard to the redevelopment of the Forgotten Triangle, and this was the original argument for the OC way, way, way back when it was called the "Central Parkway". But, there wasn't a whole lot of interest in the region on improving the FT, so the "access to University Circle" argument was made. Yep, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but Joe Westsider and Mary Southsider can get behind this particular issue. If you can't easily get trucks (and I'm not talking about tractor trailers but panel trucks) to 93rd and Grand Avenue (epicenter of the FT) without navigating the narrow turn at 55th and Woodland (via I-490) or the E. 105th and Quincy intersection, how will you attract investment, even with $300M (that probably won't be coming from the state)? There are other ways to weave vehicles around the area, but at considerable cost to residents.

Main line railroad access is a good thing for transporting large quantities of goods all at once. And, at some point, when manufacturing is ramped up from light to heavy, it absolutely makes sense to take advantage of existing rail access. But, when it comes to ancillary development that would either support UC development (in terms of making products that take advantage of UC-derived intellectual property, or the basic nuts-and-bolts of supporting daily operations of all of those offices, hospitals, and classrooms), one will still be relying on trucks to move goods. Rail access for such a short haul doesn't seem efficient, unless RTA allows the Red Line to be used for short haul, small capacity, just-in-time cars that will still need to be offloaded onto rubber-tired vehicles that will probably not be run on gasoline, but could be electric. I don't see, given the historic truculence of Big Rail towards sharing access with short-line haulers, a way for the existing rail access to be used to move stuff from FT to UC or back again. Roads will still be needed. The historic establishment of industry in FT was not predicated on light industry but on moving really heavy stuff. Also, keep in mind that in Cleveland's manufacturing hey-day, trailer trucks did not exist. If you wanted to move these medium-sized quantities, you used either multiple small trucks, or you waited until you had to get enough stuff where it would make sense to employ a train. Now that we are accustomed to JIT, I don't see us going back. Regarding maintenance, since it will be a state road, it will have to be maintained by ODOT. Wouldn't you rather have ODOT spend money on building infrastructure in an already-developed area and pay for its maintenance (thereby sparing some traffic on city roads sloppily maintained by the city) than on exurban highways? ODOT would probably kick in the same proportion as it is for the InnerBelt. Yes, I know what a disaster ODOT is, but it makes sense to distract them from projects such as the Avon interchange.

Caveat: I don't think that OC makes a lot of sense from a purely commuter POV, but Ronayne and others who have supported OC over the last couple of decades haven't argued that it does. The crux of the arguments have been about opening up land around UC for more development, especially the Forgotten Triangle. And, I think that the argument in this thread has been pretty passenger-focused when it really should be broader and include an examination of how light industry and ancillary services still move goods (still primarily truck-based). I'm not sure if there is a need for a road between E. 55th and Woodland, but I do support Ronayne's idea that connecting UC to Woodland would be immediately helpful for UC and for the Forgotten Triangle. But, I'll try to answer the questions. I'd like to think that I am not "either disingenuous, totally uninformed... or both." 1. How is OC helpful to an area where most residents don't own cars and use transit anyway?: It is helpful in that it increases southwest to northeast connections for truck traffic into UC in ways that don't rely on making awkward jogs around E. 105th or cutting through neighborhood streets. Think of it as similar to the Bessemer Extension that took trucks out of St. Hyacinth. 2. If OC really is about helping the Forgotten Triangle, why is such an emphasis made on this helping U.Circle... Because politically, folks generally care more about UC than FT. It's pretty mercenary, but there it is. 3. Explain to me how this will NOT HURT the Red Line, since it will parallel it with a high-speed freeway-type road that will encourage commuters (esp the many who currently use the Red Line to get to work at UH, CWRU and other U.Circle institutions)? Again, I don't think that a UC to Woodland connector will make a significant difference for road commuters, but it is more for opening land southwest of UC that could be used for development that supports UC and helps FT This answer should suffice for questions 4 and 5. 6. Why is Cleveland talking about building more freeway-roads when gas prices are headed toward $5.00/gallon and more and when RTA is strapped for cash? It's not a freeway. 7. Name a city (other than St. Paul, as the PD did, which has no rapid transit system) that actually has high-speed, rapid transit, esp to the same exact corridor, where the city is building roads to compete with the transit line.... Dallas, with the North Central Expressway that competes with DART. Then again, if only the Woodland-UC section is built, then this question is irrelevant. 8. If the Forbidden Triangle is in such need, how come its ills not be solved on the existing road grid? Where has it been shown that the current roads, as they exist, are holding the FT back? Because,other than the just-built Bessemer Extension helping the southern part of FT, any truck access to FT requires going from E. 55th through Grand Ave. to Kinsman or up through Woodland Ave. The whole area is built for rail access back when there were spurs to every factory, but I don't see those days coming back even if gas prices stay high or go up higher. Back when rail was king, there were no competing large trucks of scale. Now, it would probably still be more efficient for trucks to handle short-haul, regional goods movement. Woodland itself is narrow and a mess, too difficult to navigate even on a bike with existing traffic. 9. Isn’t development of commercial areas, investment and TOD things that would be more effective for residents?... Yep, and you need road access to move goods that can be made by folks who get to work via bus/rail. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. 10. There’ve been suggestions that money people, like the Ratners, stand to make $$$$ off OC because of land interests in the area – prove this ISN’T the case. Oh COME ON. First, you can't prove a negative. Second, anybody who is a developer stands to make money, otherwise they wouldn't be in the game. By the bye, I'm a bike and transit guy living in Tremont who maybe uses 8 gallons of gas a month, if that. So, I'm not coming at this from a suburban POV.

Um, somebody at the Ohio Environmental Council needs a proofreader. Nevertheless, I sent my emails weeks ago. Thanks, k!

There is indeed a driving range at Washington GLC, and it is the closest one to Downtown. The course is actually quite challenging for golfers of any handicap, and it's Audubon-certified. There is also a chipping green for your short game. I can recommend Washington unreservedly.

^ I think that the only argument would come from folks who haven't tried Vincenza's. My only complaint with them are the hours (not typically open in the evening unless there is a game or some other event in Gateway). However, I am sanguine that those hours will expand as more folks move in downtown.

Easy, now. Being raised in Texas, I too grew up with "Coke", and it's not much different from referring to other genericized trademarks such as "Kleenex" or "Jello". It's fairly simple, actually. You have an icebox full of "cokes", but will choose to drink a Dr. Pepper.

their way of thinking and Operations. Agreeing for to do/approve things instead of thinking on a individual council ward needs and how that ward relates to the overall improvement of the city. I can't find an example of what I'm speaking of but when I do, I'll post. Maybe you're thinking something along the lines of having councilpersons doing more legislating and less day-to-day work of taking constituents' calls to fix potholes/board houses/repair infrastructure? I myself would like to see fewer wards and less "constituent service" that seems to perpetuate the dependence that citizens have on their representatives, and instead, have these calls go directly to the city departments in charge of these functions.

What do you mean by "reform"?

Oy, you're not joking. There is work underway to compile all of the past studies of the hillside and come up with an emergency plan for if/when the hillside fails and to come up with project plans and cost estimates for stabilizing the area. Current estimate: $50M

No worries. I think that you went to Civilization, just off of Lincoln Park. Thing is that Tremont tends to be an evening/night time neighborhood. That's when the hoards of folks rush into the bars and restaurants. Art Walk evenings also bring in the folks. Daytime on a weekday, though, is not it's best time. Did you at least make it into Visible Voice Books? It has one of the more eclectic collections in Cleveland.

Are you serious? I'm sorry but I think that new back half is really really ugly. Does anybody know who the architect is? I think that MTS was referring to the shot of the original 1916-built section of the museum as taken from across Wade Lagoon. The original (1916) building was designed by Hubbell and Benes. Marcel Breuer was the architect for the 1971 expansion that you mainly see from Wade Oval; this is the dark granite entrance. Rafael Vinoly is the architect for the present expansion linking the two main buildings. Or, you could read more about it here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2624.0.html

Progress and Prosperity, young buck. Progress and Prosperity.

The Stokes Courthouse is a modern representation of early skyscrapers and their own reliance upon the classical order, and specifically the form of the column. The courthouse can actually be seen as a quarter-section of a single Doric order column, complete with a distinctive base, shaft, and capital. With that in mind, having a modern representation of the Venus de Milo makes a bit more sense. Or, you could just think of it as an homage to the Kingsbury Run Torso Murders, which took place a couple miles to the east.

Oof. http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/06/continental_to_cut_hopkins_cap.html

In an attempt to stem off a flame-war, I wonder if you have any stats to back up your claim. If what you say is true, it would mean that either white folks rarely walk through black neighborhoods (a claim that is contradicted by even the most cursory survey of black neighborhoods and even the experiences of folks on this very thread) or that the hospitals and morgues are filled with the bodies of white folks who made the mistake of walking through Hough, Kinsman, Mount Pleasant, etc. Be very careful here, Eparabola.

peabody99, the Mercedes Benz dealership in Bedford sells and services Smart Cars (I think since mid-2007). I remember meeting back in 2000 a German couple who were driving a Smart car around the U.S., and who had stopped in Cleveland to stay with some friends of mine. I believe that the MPG was fairly mediocre back then as well. Hell, my 1999 Corolla gets similar mileage.

I've never been real pleased with Kimo's, even when they were in Market 55. Ginza's a real diamond in the rough, and a fave-rave of mine. Please, whatever you do, avoid Sushi Rock. Hell, even Constantino's sushi is better.

This is probably obvious, but have you contacted your councilperson? With most stuff in the City, that's your first and best bet.

Residents looking out for one another is a good and worthy thing, but Little Italy is still a very uncomfortable place for my middle-income, professional black friends to visit. I don't think that some of the FBI-types distinguish the difference between the "gangbangers" and somebody who wants to have a pleasant evening, free from harassment or hostile stares.

Ah, both of those statements are Not Quite Right. The Feds will cover 75% of the cost of building the CDF for the Cuyahoga River's dredge wastes, and the Port of Cleveland and City of Cleveland (as local sponsors of the CDF project) would have to cover the remaining 25%. Once the CDF is constructed (with the 75% Federal Match), the Port of Cleveland is on its own for the rest of the move, including but not limited to construction of new terminals, relocation of cranes, construction of connecting infrastructure such as rail and road access, and any other capital expenses. The Feds will not pay for any non-CDF improvements, unless the Port of Cleveland goes back to Congress, hat in hand. And, that 2012 date is just for the construction of the CDF, which is intended to contain 20 years of dredge spoils. If the Port were wait until the entire CDF was filled, 2032 would merely signal the end of the Corps of Engineer's work; the Port would still have to wait several years for the dredge spoils in the CDF to dry and settle. If the CDF was constructed in phases using separate cells, the Port could conceivably move onto the CDF in phases of its own. However, given that constructing the CDF using separate cells would be more expensive than constructing it all at once, the Port would have to cover any additional expenses to make the CDF development-ready.

After reviewing this question with my fellow CEO's (of the Kroger, P&G, Chiquita, and 5/3 alliance - KPGC5/3A) we came to the conclusion that yes, we chose this reason because of the soil "conditions". And we don't want to compete with Manhattan and all ... well, you guys know how that is ... Um, I was actually being sincere. The main reason that Cleveland has a skyline consisting of three towers taller than 650' and then a bunch of sub-400' buildings is that the deep glacial till makes it unfeasible to build taller than 20 or so floors unless you sink cassions about 300 feet deep to the bedrock. This also accounts for the three towers, since if you're going to make that foundation investment, you might as well build as tall as you can. I didn't know if Cincinnati had issues regarding the Ohio River valley, since the size of the metropolitan area would seem support more projects like Queen City Center. EDIT: Or, was there a "gentleman's agreement" similar to Philadelphia's regarding the William Penn statue on City Hall?