Confiteordeo

I'm aware of that, hence the "+" in "30+." I meant it as an ongoing process.

It would, but given the length of time necessary for FEB, Pesht, etc. to finish planning, building, and fill up, that length of time might be desirable in order to avoid depressed rents and a surplus of vacant space downtown. I guess I see it as the middle step in downtown's longterm redevelopment: Near term (5-10 years): FEB, Pesht built Mid term (20 years): Downtown expansion north to the lakefront Longterm (30+ years): Full realization of lakefront plan Obviously, that's over-simplified and ignores a lot of projects, but it's just my idea of an overall framework for development in that particular area. Especially because our economy is still fragile, I don't think that taking things a little bit slowly is necessarily bad. We shouldn't wait so long that opportunities pass us by, but we should take as much time as we need to adequately plan and execute development.

Maybe they're filming another episode of 30 Rock. :wink:

I like the accusatory tone at the end: "IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.4 PLANETS."

Go Bears! Nice pics.

It sounds like she saw or read this article: http://a.abcnews.com/WN/story?id=3846303 It calls Slavic Village a suburb of Cleveland, so maybe that says something about the level of research they did. :roll: Need Housing Advice? Get Help on Everything From Selling a Home to Foreclosure. Nov. 9, 2007— Even homeowners who are up to date on their mortgage payments are feeling the pain of the current mortgage market. Slavic Village, a suburb of Cleveland, used to be a thriving, working class, multi-ethnic community. It's now the victim of what some refer to as "economic rape."

That's not strictly true. Greater Cincinnati is the second largest economy based in Ohio, but because part of the metro is outside of the state, it's the third largest contributor to Ohio's economy (according to the study, and the whole point of the graphic.) It's a subtle difference, and I understand that people might miss it, but strictly speaking, the graphic is correct and does explicitly say "share of Ohio's gross domestic product" and "share of Ohio population."

I never said that you did deny or argue it, I was just stating the obvious. And no, there is NO "screwing" of Cincinnati's metro at all. The parts that aren't in Ohio are simply irrelevant for the purposes of this graphic- there's no belittling or shafting going on, just the presentation of data for the state of Ohio and not Kentucky or Indiana. By saying "shafted" and "screwed" you implied there was something unfair about it, so it seemed like whining. Stating the obvious would be saying, "Cincinnati's metro also includes parts of two other states," rather than "Why oh why is Cincinnati being shafted by not using data from other states in statistics about Ohio?" (That's an exaggeration, but it's how I took your post.) However, I think we've hijacked this thread for long enough, so I'll save MayDay the trouble and say BACK ON TOPIC, both of us! :whip:

I understand what you said, and I'm telling you that the rest of the metropolitan area is not relevant here. All the study says is that the Ohio portion of Cincinnati's metro is the third largest contributor to Ohio's population and GDP, which is true. Cincinnati's not being shafted, it's just a fact of life that part of its metro is outside of the state, and therefore does not contribute to Ohio's GDP or population. Obviously the Ohio breakdown doesn't give the full picture of Greater Cincinnati, but it doesn't claim to. If you look at the rest of the report, you'll see similar situations for St. Louis, Kansas City, New York City, and all the other interstate metros. If you really think that this study treats Cincinnati unfairly, do realize that it also gives Cincinnati's national GDP rank (24,) which takes into account the rest of the metro. It just isn't relevant to the Ohio breakdown, so it's not shown on the PD graphic.

If the study is looking at jobs and residents as a percentage of Ohio's total, why would it include jobs and residents in KY and IN? Cincinnati isn't getting the shaft; it would just be meaningless to include the whole metro in an intrastate comparison.

Maybe weepinwillow means it's relocating from the CBD... of another major city? :grin: (Well, I can hope, can't I?)

Yea - that is the plan. When everything is finalized with K&D buying the 668 Euclid building and retrofitted to apartments, this old Dollar Bank building you speak of will be knocked down to make way for access to the parking garage for the building. Do you know anything more specific about what this access is going to be? If they're just going to tear down the building to create an alley, that would be a real shame...

Could we possibly sticky this thread?

Maybe they'll consider doing the tour again because of interest.

Columbus was 23 and Cleveland was 26.

^ That's a really cool idea, X.

This whole talk of encouraging workers to leave their office building to shop and eat reminds me of the development of Government Center in Boston, MA. When it was conceived, it was explicitly designed to consolidate all of the local, state, and federal employees in the city without a cafeteria or other retail establishments inside in order to bolster street life downtown, and with a ridiculous number of workers (I think it was something like 25,000,) it was seen as a sure thing. Unfortunately, they didn't realize that the workers were only willing to walk a certain distance to eat and that they didn't have time or didn't want to take the bus or subway. The area immediately surrounding Government Center flourished, but it did nothing for the rest of the downtown, and in fact, it hurt those areas whence the workers were relocated. At the same time, however, the 52-story Prudential Tower was being built to the west, and contrary to everyone's expectations, an upscale shopping district developed around it. Obviously, these two developments happened in a different time and place, but it's worth remembering that Boston in the 60's and 70's was not a terribly attractive place to live or work. Anyway, my point is that we're probably over-simplifying the impact of Pesht and a potential Jacobs tower. While Pesht will certainly improve streetlife in the Warehouse District, and probably east to Lower Euclid and Superior, I don't know what kind of generalizations we can make about its impact on the rest of downtown. At the same time, a large tower may not be the end of life as we know it. There are too many variables to consider. That said, I would love to see a buzzing Warehouse district before anything else, as it could generate excitement about living downtown. One of the things that Boston didn't have in the 60's that we have now is a growing downtown population, and I think we could make great things happening elsewhere downtown by capitalizing on Pesht's success.

^^^^Thanks, Boreal.

I'd really be interested in any articles you might have about this.

Last Monday, when I was watching the game on tv, the announcer said something like, "It's a good thing the Cy Young votes have already been cast." I was confused by that, because I didn't understand why they wouldn't have announced the results yet. Regardless, I've heard multiple times that it is only based on season performances.

^Totally agree.

Ok, so using the footprint you provided and the 2000 census, I came up with around 6,000 people downtown in 2000: Census Tract 1071, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 2,914 Census Tract 1072, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 373 Census Tract 1073, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 40 Census Tract 1074, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 8 Census Tract 1076, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 74 Census Tract 1077, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 523 Census Tract 1078, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 2,027 Total 5959 There are parts of other tracts in the footprint, so I'm rounding up to 6,000. 4,000 more people in 7 years is pretty impressive growth, if you ask me, even assuming that the census counts people in the Justice Center. Does anyone know how many more housing units are projected for downtown by 2010? By numbers alone, I'd guess that we'll reach 12,000 or 13,000 people, but housing would be more telling.

That's a different market. The people looking to buy condos are generally upper middle to upper class, retirees or young professionals.

That still seems low. The Brookings Institution report "Who Lives Downtown"* found 9,600 people downtown in 2000, an increase of 32% over 1990. Although they don't give the boundaries they used to come up with that figure, they state that the boundaries for all the cities in the study came from the municipal government, and were checked on-site by researchers. I assume that the city of Cleveland gave them a definition similar to yours, since your definition matches up pretty well with the neighborhood map on the city website. If we've really only gained 200-400 people in the past 7 years, that represents a 2-4% growth. I know our economy hasn't been the greatest and there hasn't been a glut of new development, but it seems hard to believe that growth would drop 30% just like that. *PDF:http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2005/11downtownredevelopment_birch/20051115_Birch.pdf Also, fwiw, the Fannie Mae Foundation (in conjunction with Brookings) published this: http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/census_notes_3.html, which gives downtown's area as 4.3 square miles. The source given for that is the Census Bureau by way of the University of Pennsylvania's department of city and regional planning.

I didn't hear this in my city, but rather about my city: I think this professor was from Saint Louis.