MidwestChamp

^Hmmm...sounds like Mark Naymik maybe stumbled on a link that wasn't supposed to be live yet and the folks at Positively Cleveland quickly pulled it. If these comments are shared with them perhaps they can address the concerns raised here prior to 3/19...a sort of unplanned soft preview to gather good feedback.

I don't so much have a problem with the slogan This is Cleveland as I do the weak execution and apologetic tone the marketing so far seems to take. Pure Michigan doesn't really say anything about the state, but that slogan plus the soothing voice plus shots of a peaceful lake work well together to create a specific image of Michigan. To me the This is Cleveland campaign could be great if the images and message behind This is Cleveland we're vibrant, loud and projected the image of a confident, historic emerging city that contributed greatly to the 20th century and is now poised to do the same in the 21st. Recent DCA video's to me come closer to this.

Patience people, (WKYC in particular) as phase 2 opens and people actually live in the area, along with the additional entertainment options, I am sure ridership will pick up.

I don't think I've seen this posted, but I stumbled on this in-depth analysis on the economics of Cleveland's de-hubbing conducted by Aspire Aviation. Some highlights: "Network marginalisation Prior to the merger, Cleveland would have likely remained a Continental hub in perpetuity. In Continental’s network, alongside hubs in Newark and Houston, Cleveland served an essential role. It was Continental’s only effective way to connect passengers to and from the Midwest, a region of between 65 and 80 million people depending on the exact boundaries used. Even if the hub was not spectacularly profitable on a standalone operating basis: it was marginally profitable in 2007, running sub-0.8% operating margins against 5.5%-plus for Newark and Houston, its contribution to the network was essential to maintaining Continental’s base of lucrative frequent flyers and corporate contracts. Once the merger occurred, however, the new United had a hub just 315 miles to the west at Chicago O’hare that had a local origin and destination (O&D) traffic base that was more than five and a half times as large. Chicago O’Hare also had three times as many daily departures and four to five times as much capacity, which meant that it could handle the same connections geographically as Cleveland, with better aircraft operating costs as the larger O&D traffic base allowed United to operate larger aircraft, which have lower costs per available seat mile (CASM), and better costs overall since the fixed costs of an admittedly larger O’Hare hub are spread over so-many more flights that on a per-ASM or per-passenger basis, it is cheaper to send a connection over O’Hare. Overall, Aspire Aviation estimates that this cost advantage on connections totals between 7-9%, a major advantage for an airline such as United that most recently produced a 3.3% operating margin in 2013. And as 50-seat regional jet CASM increases outpaced the industry average, Cleveland became an increasingly expensive hub to connect passengers through..." "Expensive aircraft The most common thread amongst airports that have been de-hubbed is an over-reliance on regional jets to feed the hub. For example, 62.7% of Pittsburgh’s peak departures were regional jets and small aircraft while the figure was 72.8% at Cincinnati and 68.1% at St. Louis. In 2013, the figure was 85.5% for Cleveland. In particular 50-seat regional jets have been hammered by increasing maintenance costs due to the ageing nature of the fleet as well as the permanently higher fuel price level, although it is projected to moderate or even decline over the next few years... " "Examining the data ...In his letter, United chief executive Jeff Smisek stated, “No city has been more supportive of its hub carrier, and no group of employees has been more dedicated to providing great service, but the demand for hub-level connecting flying through Cleveland simply isn’t there.” The latter part of his statement is true, but it could have been clarified better as “the demand for hub-level connecting flying at higher fares relative to Chicago O’Hare simply isn’t there.” The first portion of the statement also holds merit, Cleveland residents certainly spent more on flying United, with O&D revenue growing an aggregate 24.2% despite a 45.2% weighted increase in O&D fares charged. These figures are skewed, however, by the addition of pre-merger United Airlines traffic to Washington-Dulles, Chicago O’Hare, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Denver. Total revenues for the hub declined 11.2% from 2007 to 2013, which is close to 25% in real terms. Moreover, international revenues certainly declined with the elimination of several routes such as Cleveland-Nassau and Cleveland-London Gatwick. Aspire Aviation‘s analysis extended to margins, and it is estimated that the Cleveland hub lost money in both 2007 and 2013. In 2013, Aspire Aviation found that the hub was marginally profitable during the third-quarter with operating margin between 0-0.5%, while for the full year, margins were between -2.5 and -3.0%, validating Smisek’s claims. The elimination of the Cleveland hub is therefore margin-positive for United, both due to direct reduction in losses, and indirect pricing effects of removing capacity from the market. Overall, it is reasonable to predict that the Cleveland de-hubbing will add between US$55-65 million annually to United’s bottom line, contributing about 15 basis points of margin improvement." There is additional information and segments, and data tables to support the analysis at this link. http://www.aspireaviation.com/2014/02/20/united-cleveland-dehubbing/ This seems like a reasonable summary of events since 2007, but I am in no way qualified to really understand everything behind this study. I was hoping our smart UO members connected with the aviation industry could look at this and say if it's a fair assessment of the factors that led to du-hubbing, or if not point out why. What's done is done and we're moving forward, but I'd also like to know how changes in the airline industry are impacting CLE and other airports in medium sized cities...it really seems like we're getting squeezed out in a way that will hurt all but the largest cities.

True, I was more speaking of the Westin being a step up from the Crown Plaza that preceded it, and with this announcement regarding the Renaissance, my hope is it will move up as well. Either way these seem to be good times for the Cleveland hotel market.

^That's a great summary of whats going on in the market MTS. It will be interesting to see how things shake out over the next few years with new hotels coming online and potentially a very big, political convention giving Cleveland spotlight and putting us into the major leagues for conventions and tourism. Hopefully this encourages more luxury brands to open or current properties to be rebranded "up" like the new Westin did.

^Plus I am sure they would all go to bat for Cleveland and Cincinnati for their bids as well. City rivalries aside, for the state as a whole it's great if any one of the 3 cities get the convention, heck I'd like to see them both in Ohio. Of course as a Clevelander I'd like to see one here, and let Columbus and Cincinnati fight over the remaining convention! :-P

I understand that, but I'm not sure there were other options that fit the producers needs. And you're probably right. I guess that's why I was hoping the agreements with the IX Center would have been structured to allow the event to move back downtown when the new center opened, but I also understand that would have been difficult at best balancing an IX Center that I'm sure wanted a multi-year commitment with an under construction center whose opening date could have been delayed by one bad winter. Still sucks for the runners but I do understand the dilemma.

^I agree with all your sentiments MTS, and I wish the exhibition space downtown were larger for exactly those reasons. But in terms of the Cleveland Marathon, I was speaking of this being inconvenient for the runners. The old center use to serve as the festival village for the event, registration and such. Looking at their website runners have to register and pick up their packets WAAAAYY out at the IX center for a race run downtown. For the marathon this is not an ideal set up at all. Heck I'd be tired before the race began doing all that!

Very inconvenient. The IX Center must of forced them to sign a commitment beyond the projected opening of the downtown center to secure their business. Not ideal for the runners, who will probably run past the center and wonder why their not gathering there.

3-4 years ago the Marathon Expo was at Great Lakes Expo Center in Euclid, which was small and dilapidated. The I-X is way too big this event. I agree with freethink, its a no brainer to move it downtown. I believe those other locations were temporary while the new convention center was built anyway. I suspect this year's marathon will make extensive use of the new center downtown.

^You definitely make some valid points to consider, especially relating to I see this differently--for a number of reasons: 1. To begin with, the economy of scale is all wrong. There is nothing that Fedex ships that would make any sense putting on a boat, or vice versa. In addition, I don't think the runways at BKL are long/strong enough to support the occasional Fedex or UPS Heavy that lands at Hopkins. 2. The current goods coming in on boats is not warehousing material. It is steel coils and bulk goods--so logistics chain businesses have no interest in boats, unless you can convince an operator to send small container ships through the St Lawrence? So far this hasn't happened on the Great Lakes in any large quantities--so my guess is this would take a more coordinated effort than just Cleveland alone deciding to become a container port. 3. The area at the mouth of the river you speak of (between the mouth and W9th) could still be developed with minimal effect on the port operations, other than the bulk silo on the east side of the river. That has to be another 30-40 acres alone? 4. The city shut down the flats and gave it to Wolstein 10+ years ago, and we're just now seeing signs of development beyond the E&Y tower. How many years and global financial maladies would we have to endure to fill up 400+ acres of lakefront property? At its best I think Cleveland would end up putting something that looks like I271 and Harvard on the Burke property. And who here really wants that? 5. Burke can be a development tool. Why not offer free landing fees, office rent and other tax incentives to aviation-based companies, or corporations with private jets, to put their headquarters in downtown Cleveland? Cleveland is a 2 hour flight from 2/3 of the population of North America. There has to be a selling point in there somewhere? The airport in Addison TX comes to mind, if anyone has spent time in the North-Dallas suburbs. 6. If we were really thinking big, I'd rather see the port land around the mouth and west developed first (which would require something to happen with the bulk docks at Whisky island. Keep Burke as an economic generator, and cover the shoreway with mid-rise office complexes, apartments and retail to service all the new jobs created. This Shoreway-topper could easily become a TOD development with the extension of the Waterfront line, as well as an inter-city passenger service terminal located at E9th. I was definitely thinking more of warehouse goods than the bulk items currently stored at the port. While container shipping is not as common on the lakes right now, efforts are underway to change that. We cannot know were these efforts will go, but if the new vessels that can travel straight from the ocean into the Great Lawrence Seaway and into the lakes, then taking actions to better connect the port to other modes of transportation and warehousing may put us ahead of other great lakes ports. But more importantly to me, I think this a great moment to drastically rethink the lakefront as well as all of our assets. I agree with you we should cap the shoreway and build the multimodal transport center. And to your point 400 acres is a lot to redevelop, and it may take 50 years to complete, but at what point do we move things now so that its easier to make changes in the future. It's crazy we're a riverfront AND a lakefront city and there are so few places to enjoy the water, especially downtown. In another thread theres a pic of Toronto's waterfront in the 1960's and then today. The 1960's pic does not look all that different from Cleveland back then, but they made steps long ago to open up land for development. It didn't happen over night there and certainly won't here, but we could use this moment to take steps that can set us up for the future. Especially when people clamor for Burke to be redeveloped in that way, which I think makes no sense because it's so far from the downtown core. However moving the port and developing that land instead of Burke, that makes more sense because it is at least connected to downtown.

Building off of KJP and other's idea of moving the port, here's my dream plan for the lakefront: 1. Move GA flights to other area airports (county, lorain, hopkins as last resort) 2. Expand Burke to handle cargo planes...move UPS, FedEx, etc to Burke 3. Move port from current location to unused land on eastern edge of airport (somewhat reviving the East 55th idea, but using Burke instead) This would happen over time but would give Cleveland a shipping logistics advantage over most cities in that all cargo (plane, train, boat, truck) could be handled at one facility. We could become a logistics powerhouse creating jobs. I cannot think of another city that would have both an airport and rail depot connected to its sea port, as well as great highway access. All of the industrial land on the bluff off the freeway would be revived for warehousing and logistics purposes. This would also free up the current port for residential and recreational redevelopment, a MUCH better location for this activity since the port essentially connects the Flats East Bank and North Coast Harbor. Development here would be the missing link and FINALLY connect the lakefront and riverfront in a dramatic fashion. Can you imagine living or jogging or dining where the slag piles are now at the mouth of the Cuyahoga?? Would be breathtaking! This is ambitious, expensive and would take a decade or more to complete, but if planning began now it would work. Dehubbing could offer a great opportunity to remake the lakefront and re-position our logistics assets to be better coordinated.

I down for the meet up lunch, and I'm good with the Market Cafe. Another good cafeteria-style eatery is Zack Bruell's just opened Kafeteria in the BP building. Great food reasonably priced and plenty of seating. http://kafeteriacleveland.com/

Oops. Oh the irony of that Huntington sign on that building...

OMG those pics and renderings are amazing! This is going to be such a transformational project for this corner and a unique place in the city. I cannot wait to party at that rooftop bar.

^True downtown Cleveland has vastly expanded and improved, but I would agree that our lakefront hasn't changed much, except the addition of north coast harbor, and that's McLovin's point. We've talked lakefront development to death in this town and don't have much to show for it. At the same time many other cities have completely remade their waterfronts into attractions, such as Toronto and Chicago, and peer cities like Milwaukee, Baltimore, more recently Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Point being our skyline has changed, but looking at old pics I don't think our waterfront has changed much. We always use the excuse that it's always been there and it's too much to move those heavy industrial uses, but that Toronto pic shows that it can be done.

I disagree with the assessment that Trader Joes won't go into low income neighborhoods or suburbs. Close by in Pittsburgh they put one in a strip mall in East Liberty. Yes East Liberty is gentrifying but the location of this TJ is in Penn Station, 2 blocks from Larimer (where I once lived) and it's NOT gentrified at all...in fact is the lowest income area in the city. It can be done and I think Cleveland can bring a TJs to the old East Side Market at East 105 and St. Clair (near Bratenahl) if Pitt can bring both Whole Foods and TJs to a poor neighborhood that's next to wealth (Shadyside).

It's done. In life you work towards your best but you prepare for the worst. The "United for the Hub" effort may have delayed the inevitable, but the day of recognizing is here and looking at Pitt and Cincy and StL and countless other mid sized cities and hubs...we knew this was coming. I hope that behind the public "We love United" front they've been working behind the scenes in preparation for this day. How awesome would it be to announce just weeks after this a major increase SWA or Jet Blue coming to town...ramp up's in new service that coincide with United's pull out. This statement from Seth Young, director of the Center for Aviation Studies at The Ohio State University, is how the leadership in the region should be thinking: "Young said that while in the short run, United's pullout will mean a lot of empty gates at Hopkins' Concourse D, this is an opportunity not only for a competing carrier to expand in Cleveland, but for the city itself to get more flights to destinations Clevelanders want to fly to. Right now, United brings in lots of regional flights whose passengers are changing planes in Cleveland, but the routes are determined by where the airline wants to go, he said. "Hopefully another carrier will come in and fulfill the demand that Cleveland deserves to have," he said. "There's so much going on that city and they need this." This was taken from the following PD article: Cleveland's costly regional jets contributed to United Airlines' hub pullout Aviation experts say the high cost of operating regional routes may have contributed to United's decision to pull its hub out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport on Feb. 1. (Peggy Turbett, Plain Dealer file) Print Janet H. Cho, The Plain Dealer By Janet H. Cho, The Plain Dealer http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/02/clevelands_costly_regional_jets_contributed_to_united_airlines_hub_pullout.html

C Can we bring these shelters back and take out the current Healthline ones?

Certainly. And the best way the trains could operate on the spur is from the opposite direction -- from Little Italy station, then to UC-Cedar station, then go up the hill. Or, since the single-largest commuting destination from the Heights is to UC, not downtown, why not run the Blue Line to University Circle instead? This is a potential routing.... As an alternate KJP, what would you think of routing up Cedar Hill and then east on Euclid Heights Blvd. My thinking is the median is wide enough to be replaced by trains all the way to Coventry. My dream would be to then remove street parking from Coventry so that the train can turn north through the retail district then head east on Mayfield in the center of the street all the way out to Hillcrest. That would connect a number of employment and residential hubs. Auto commuters who use Mayfield would howl but I think this would be awesome.

How on earth is this thing going to open this summer as planned and the facade is not up yet? Have delays been announced?

So your business logic here is that when someone starts to lose market share to a new competitor, their reaction to combat this will be to do nothing? I agree with you. I would argue that these racinos make it MORE LIKELY that phase 2 will be built, not less. They know the deficiencies that the Horseshoe has. That WILL be addressed. They aren't going to let that money be taken off of the table for them and they're not going to let suburban racinos damage them. They want to be the ones doing the damaging. It will likely be mixed use, which will make it more feasible to do, but its going to happen. I think phase 2 could also morph into an expansion into more of the Higbee building. Rock gaming also spent millions to buy the rest of the building. Yes that was for the walkway but that also gives them an option to expand without the costly and time consuming expense of engineering behind Tower City. Especially if they want to quickly respond to the Hard Rock, because they've been "engineering" for years, construction is even further away. I really think they will expand into real estate they can quickly convert to gaming...heck that's why they built in the Higbee in the first place, speed to get it done and open. With that said I agree with comments that while phase 2 may not go behind TC something else will. The energy the casino has brought to the area along with all of the other developments downtown can revive mixed use plans for the site. With only a few buildings left for residential conversion and the office market tightening, we've all been talking about new construction at the FEB and maybe the public square lot...but I wouldn't count out something at tower city as well. TC is so well connected and has so many amenities it would be attractive for residential, office and entertainment construction. And that type of development wold drive the need for improved retail :-)

That is an awesome lighting scheme. I'm looking forward to this and the Ameritrust Tower adding light to the skyline. If only the feds would light the cornice of the courthouse tower again...

^A move from a kiosk to in line store means TMobile views business as brisk enough to support the expansion, which is also good.