shs96

Question for JMasek (on a whole new topic). Has there been consideration for starting service from the west bank of the flats over to the east bank or the Warehouse district? The downtown population seems to be growing, the west bank in particular is growing, W6th continues to be strong destination for folks, and the east bank development appears immanent...seems like a good opportunity to investigate. Perhaps extending the Tremont Circulator to come down Washington, head over the Center St bridge, down Old River Rd, up St. Clair to W 9th, back down Huron to Old River Rd and over the bridge again where it could continue its existing route? It could a nice link connecting Ohio City, Tremont, Flats, and the Warehouse District on one bus line. Just a thought...thanks!

Not that I know of... But in related parking issues in and around Stonebridge, I've gathered the new business owners have been in close contact with city officials as traffic/parking signs are now being appropriately posted and enforced. It looks like you can no longer park on Elm between Riverbed and Washington, they are enforcing Elm as one-way on that same section (oddly, the only section where it is one way), you can only park on Washington on the side of the street where Stonebridge is, and they've installed other stop signs, no parking signs, etc, in places they previously weren't. So I guess pay attention if you are driving down there to visit. I think this is my favorite part about the complex opening - they've become a more powerful voice for residents than a single unit owner could be and have been able to help get some things done more timely (like the gym is scheduled to open soon, added destination for police rounds, more attention to city services, etc). The follow up question becomes when are they going to start providing trolley service from East to West bank again (or from W6th to West Bank)? Hopefully in the summer...

I agree. I mentioned I was there Saturday, but it was less formal...I basically just had a drink at the bar. But after further inspection I thought conceptually it was even better than I initially thought. The services for residents - dry cleaning, pet care, car wash/detailing, etc - was a huge perk for me (especially as a dog owner). I thought the appetizers they offered last night were great and the menus seemed reasonably priced for both lunch and dinner. Coffee bar looked appealing as well. I thought the interior was really nice, I really like the feel, especially with the office space above. And I actually like the large hand made faces, I know many don't (my girlfriend didn't) but I think even if you don't like them, they are not an overpowering feature. My only critique comes from drink prices being too much, which leads to other problems. The place is designed as a lounge, despite it having a more upscale menu than just lounge/bar food. So its not really positioned as a restaurant; I wonder how many people will order entrees as table seating is pretty limited (not envisioning many people eating anything that requires a utensil in the lounge seating). Perhaps that large banquet table will be broken up into smaller ones which could solve that problem. Still, it's core competency is the lounge with entertainment - jazz music, watching a game, open mic night, relaxing with a few drinks, etc - but the drink prices are a bit much to really succeed at that. At it's current price point, I think it would do great as a restaurant and coffee bar but that's not what they are trying to be. Interesting to see how it does and if it changes at all. With that in mind, it leads to another thought - it lacks an identity. The place is really 1 venue the way its designed, but has 3 various names. It might help if the overall complex had a name that it went by and was the face of any marketing activity. Like the Powerhouse is "one venue" but Howl at the Moon, Rock Bottom, The Improv, etc are all very distinct venues. This place has stations that have more interaction with each other so I think it should have more of a common name as they are really selling the overall atmosphere/experience than simply having coffee, grabbing lunch, or having a drink. But I am very impressed overall and feel it is in good hands so it will do well, whether in its current form or an altered one. [EDIT: After reading the PD article, it seems like it will be called Stonebridge Sqaure but you wouldn't know that from any of the materials they have been passing out over the past week or so, or even when they addressed the audience last night they referred to it with 3 seperate names. But I think they should focus on that as its name and work from there, with everthing falling under that umbrella].

I absolutely stand by this statement whether you say more, quicker or more regular. Did I mention that I am not actually advocating the legalizing of steroids? My point was that if you pick one drug to legalize, what arguments can you give me that I can not apply to other drugs to be legalized? 1. Steroid use causes death. Suicide/homocide, liver/kidney failure, heart attack, & cancer. 2. One argument would be the severity of side effect associated with its usage. One can regularly drink alcohol in responsible fashion and suffer no ill-effects. You can't "regularly and responsibly" use steroids, heroin, crystal meth, or many other drugs.

I am not actually advocating legalizing steriods but I will have to disagaree with you on this statement I didn't think you were advocating it, but you also said "it doesn't kill". It does kill and I believe regular steriod use kills more (or I believe quicker) than regular alcohol or tobacco use, although I could be wrong. But it still leads to health problems that result in death.

My argument then would simply be that it is illegal, cigarettes and alcohol are not. The law has been written and there now has to be a change in that law. No change for cigarettes or alcohol law. I am saying that if you are going to change this law for the reasons of non chemical addiction, then legalize the steroid. Anyone with me? Doesn't kill, not chemically addictive, makes sports more entertaining but I guess weed does as well from the user/spectator perspective Regular steroid use does cause death, much more so than alcohol or tobacco. Lots of people who use regularly die young (usually before 40) of heart, kidney, or liver failure. Not to mention the whole roid rage, kill your family then yourself side of it...

I think if 11 wasn't an issue, Cleveland school funding would be seem adequate as I am of the opinion results would drastically improve. But hard to place all of on the blame on Dad...they didn't have the kid by themselves, just easier for them to hit and run, so to speak. Plus hard to define "dead beat dad". Does Tom Brady count?

I went on Saturday night and generally had the same impression...it's too expensive for them to rely on residents to support it. I bought 1 round for 4 people - 2 of which just got draft beer - and it was $32. That's not going to generate a "regular" type crowd which they seem to be going after. I thought the interior was great...the Italy/Mardis Gras stuff...it's not the first thing I noticed. I think it blends in with the overall decor. I like the general open, modern lounge feel. I RSVP'd for the event tonight so that will be my first go around with the food; from the looks of the menu, I was excited by it. But you're right, I can't see myself going there for drinks - it's too expensive. I can see having dinner there and hopefully the coffee shop portion (seems like they might have breakfast?) will be more reasonable.

Government funded sprawl, but the government is funded by the people. So the people who are using this subsidized public infrastructure are paying the government to create this infrastructure for them. If you're not happy with how the government has allocated the use of these funds, OK. I didn't say I thought they were doing the a great job. I feel the cost associated with building a road or public utility which the government pays for on behalf of the public is built into the cost of being part of the society we live in. So collectively the public is paying the actual cost while individually we are all paying market cost (which is the subsidized cost). Secondly, I don't think sprawl exists simply because government or special interest groups forced society to develop that way. People had the desire to develop suburbs and the government enabled them. Again, in one of the articles posted, it stated "according to Lewis Mumford’s classic The City in History, the suburb became visible almost as early as the city itself." This leads me to believe people want suburbs regardless of whether the government is subsidizing them or not.

Fair Enough. I did - I even quoted from one of them. So something you accept as fact is flat out wrong. Therefore I'm concluding other items you accept as fact could also be wrong. Differences of opinion do not constitute one as being wrong.

I understand what you are conceptually saying. My point it, there isn't going to be a situation where I personally along with only other users are going to have to soley be resposible for the cost of building a road, at least not a public road. So the public did pay to build the public road at market cost. Granted the sole users of that road aren't equally paying for it per usage or are entirely paying for it by themselves but that practically just isn't possible. Government housing and public infrastructure are two different things. Public roads, utilities, etc can be used by anyone and the public pays for it so its more like an indirect cost. Subsidized housing is only available for those who qualify. I see that more as a true subsidy. When you're pooling money to build public infrastructure, you're paying market cost to live in a society. That's just how I look at it.

Thanks for enlightening me. I don't see the difference between "market price" and "subsidized price". The market price is the subsudized price. Besides, who is subsidizing it? The government? My common sense tells me the government gets their money from its citizens, so unless I'm mistaken, citizens paid for the highway in some form. Whether they use it or not is up to them...its available to anyone. In one of the articles you posted, it speaks in the assumptions section of where the money for highways comes from, that only 60% of it comes from the "user" in the form of "gasoline taxes, license charges, and other related fees". So they are assuming the remaining 40% is "subsidized". So the rest seems to come from this magical government bank account to reduce the costs for users? It seems to me "users" are funding this magical bank account (i.e., department of transportation) with their tax dollars and inherently paying for it anyway. So I guess back to your original question: <em>But at what price? At the current, highly subsidized price? Or at the market price? If they don't want it at the market price, then is that what the market demands? Or is it what a select few special interests demanded, and influenced lawmakers to reduce the price of an unsustainable, self-destructive lifestyle to benefit them?</em> Public funds used to support public infrastructure seems like the market price to me. You seem to be advocating some sort of "all costs must be directly paid by the users" when it comes to highways and roads. Yet at the same time, you seem to support public transportation which is just as subsidized as interstate and roadway systems. Would you be using public transport if all costs were only to be paid by the user? Somehow I doubt it. Its just your preference to have a society structured that way. However, other's preference is to have their large yard in their quiet subdivision and get in their car and go where they want. It's simply about choice. And people's choice was to often live in suburbs. I don't think a few special interest groups influenced law makers and forced the development of "an unsustainable, self-destructive lifestyle to benefit them". I think some people saw the market demand and capitalized on it. Now if you think their choice to live that lifestyle was short sighted or an overall detriment to society, well, OK, that's your choice. I'm just never going to agree with that. I just get the feeling that many on this board feel like the two can't co-exist. Which I think is a big problem for a group of people who are aiming to improve a region's prosperity. Because some people will never want to live in an urban environment just as some will never want to live in a suburb. You're not going to force people to live the lifestyle you think is best.

I think Miami is more complicated, hurricanes have changed the landscape there - literally and figuratively - over the years. Most notably after Hurricane Andrew. As for ATL, I guess I don't know enough of the specifics as to what constitued Atlanta's population to know whether or not the city is growing. I guess I thought what is now Sandy Springs was formerly Atlanta and counted towards Atlanta's population. So it's apparent "stagnant" population numbers were more of the effect of removing area from city limits rather than the city itself not growing. I don't know for sure. You're obviously familiar with the area; it's hard to think the city itself is not growing considering there seems to be a high rise condo building sprouting up every other block in midtown. <em>But at what price? At the current, highly subsidized price? Or at the market price? If they don't want it at the market price, then is that what the market demands? Or is it what a select few special interests demanded, and influenced lawmakers to reduce the price of an unsustainable, self-destructive lifestyle to benefit them?</em> Not sure I follow...highly subsidized price v market price? What is currently subsidized?

Nice article and great observation regarding the irony of capitalism driving and now potentially halting urban sprawl. One item that I find to be an interesting side-bar to this discussion: Well, in Cleveland, yes I agree. But in cities where I think "Urban Sprawl" is more prominant - Atlanta, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, whatever city you want to attach to the region known as "South Florida", etc, I don't know that this definition fits. For example, Atlanta might be the crown jewel of all urban sprawls. Some parts of Fulton county have just recently spun off from Atlanta and incorporated into their own cities. Yet the population downtown (well, "downtown" is now split into 3 sections - downtown, midtown, and uptown/Buckhead) is becoming more dense, not less. So parts of the city are becoming denser while still growing - mightly I might add - continuing to develop into one of the nation's largest urban sprawls. Atlanta was never really a "dense" city. Most of its booming growth began in the 60's and then really exploded after it was awarded the Olympics. And the original parts of the city are still as populous as they once were, to some extent more. But for the most part, Atlanta is considered a city on the up and up despite its urban sprawl...mainly because the economy is going so well there. But it developed that way because that's what the market demanded - people wanted to live in low density areas. Many people like privacy, enjoy space, were looking for something more out of their house, etc. I guess the problem arises when, like in Cleveland, expansion is detrimental to the urban core. I think it's just a matter of planning for this type of growth and incorporating low density areas more effectively into the urban region. In Cleveland, you can see why it became an issue because suburban cities were fighting for themselves rather than the region, but in Atlanta, even far out parts that were essentially "suburbs" still fell under the City of Atlanta, so it seemed to happen regardless. Anyway, just some thoughts.

For the record, I wouldn't pay $425 to live there either. However, as an avid HGTV watcher, I wouldn't pay anything near what some of the places are going for in other cities (DC, NYC, Chicago, etc). I saw a House Hunters in Maui last night and they paid $1 million+ for a 2700 sq ft house that needed susbstantial upgrades. I know, that's what the market commands, but my point is its not worth living in Maui (or city X) if that's what I have to pay...but paying that price is worth it to some people, which is probably what will happen here. I mean, the exact same unit 2 floors up from me is listed for $40k more than what I paid for mine. Their view of the lake is blocked by the bridge (whereas mine you can see under it) and our downtown views are the same. Despite this, someone will pay more to simply be "2 floors higher". So hey, to each his own.

Yeah, lots of good restaurant info on that site. Sounds like the "new" look will be worth checking out!

One item in terms of new insight, he's selling his house in Brookpark, upgrading to somewhere on the East side. You can check out the kitchen in his old house <a href="http://www.clevelandfoodie.blogspot.com/">here</a> (follow the link from the Cleveland Foodie blog)

What's the first rule of real estate?

If you want to avoid that exit, get off I-90 at W 14th go through Tremont to get to SYC. W 14th ends at a traffic circle that takes you directly into SYC. You can also avoid the interstate all together if you head down into the flats and take Scranton south and cut over to W 14th on a cross street.

I saw this in the PD and couldn't help thinking, gee, I wonder if it's the weather that causes "depression" or the continually negative stories that include lines like "That's a depressing seven straight gloomy days -- and still counting -- in this bleak late winter." that the PD publishes. I like the weather, I love the change of seasons. Last February was awesome when it snowed everyday. I actually wish it would snow more.

I agree. I've said a couple times, as have other supporters of the project, that would be best. I guess my point is while The Q is a much greater asset than Richfield ever was, Richfield was not a failure and potentially, an MLS stadium could succeed in a growing Summit county. Question is, why is anyone from Cleveland allowing this to happen? Why isn't some civic leader from the city/county making noise about this? Why isn't someone working on a proposal that would be more attractive than the Summit County one? I don't know the answer, but maybe that's why Summit county is growing and Cuyahoga is shrinking.

Just fwiw, Summit County is fifth. Hamilton is before Montgomery. Sorry, I meant Hamilton. Summit (545,931) has more than Montgomery (542,237). http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/39113.html

Ahh, ahh, ahhhhh. You're playing with statics. You're only using basketball statistics. You have to use the full year of events. The Gund [the Q] brought in quite a few more people than the out in the middle of nowhere Colosseum. Downtown Cleveland already has the infrastructure, in place, to support this type of venue. Why reinvent the wheel? A wheel that already has been proven to be a flat? Well, I think Cleveland would be preferred, as many have mentioned, as a joint CSU/MLS/HS Sports stadium. But for whatever reason, that doesn't seem to be happening. Some have alledged the city isn't insterested, some have alledged Wolstein isn't interested. I personally don't know. But I guess I am not of the opinon that Richfield was a failure. It drew well for Cavs games, it drew well for Force/Crunch games. It hosted other events regularly like the circus, moster truck rallies, concerts, and WWF events. Blossom does fine and assuming the weather co-operates so do the ski places. I guess the question is if the demand for an MLS stadium is there, why isn't there more of a push to put it downtown?

It would be special in rural northern Summit County, just like the Richfield Colosseum was? Probably more like Blossom & Boston Mills/Brandywine are special in Summit County. Summit County is also the 4th most populous county in the state, behind Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Montgomery. Ahead of Lucas. Not sure it qualifies as rural. Also, Richfield drew just fine, assuming the franchise was being run well (re: Ted Stepien years don't count). Besides, its not like the Gund was drawing people simply because it was downtown. Avg. attendence the year before LeBron was 11,496, worst in the league. His rookie year it was 18,287.

Who here said it was? He was the first one I found.