Hts121

^I think we also decided that bumsquare was being sarcastic.

This is a pretty wide margin at this point. But I expect it to be closer than this when the actual vote is held. Ohio voters say new collective bargaining law should be repealed, new poll shows CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A majority of Ohio voters say the state's new collective bargaining law, known as Senate Bill 5, should be dumped, a new survey shows. Fifty-four percent of registered voters polled by Quinnipiac University said they favor repealing the law, which restricts collective bargaining for state employees, while 36 percent said the law should stand. http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,25680.30.html

What needs to be rehabbed? There were businesses in there just a year ago so it can't be that bad. What's the problem with the building? I don't have the answers, which is why I asked. I infer from your post that the businesses are now gone. Why did they leave? Regardless, I guess "rehabbed" was not the right term. I was actually thinking of a conversion / re-purpose. Have there been any proposals, studies, etc.?

True. But the "mudpit" should dissappear soon enough. And, correct me if I am wrong, but banks are NOT currently lending for the type of development (higher end condos) envisioned for the part of this development where the (mostly) vacant building were. Also, I was under the impression that the infrastructure work needed to be done required the flattening of the entire lot..... so I am not sure that they could have done it in the phases that would have appeased those all up in arms about the current state of things.

It doesn't because I think of the east as being much, much more densely populated.

I'm kind of surprised that the major metropolises of NYC and Chicago are not in the top 10.

They are. And financing has been secured through a very complex package. And construction has started. And steel should be rising out of the ground very soon.

His wingspan is also not overly impressive for a player his size..... and I read somewhere that people think he might be a few years older than his listed age. Nonetheless, his skill set is undeniable. He is very coordinated for a player of his build. Here are some highlights:

Agreed. I don't like how that design interacts with the Stanley Block

You seem pretty sure what every GM in the league thinks. Williams is plenty 'fast' enough to play the 3. The question some media folks bring up is his lateral quickness to play D at that position. But no GMs have officially weighed in on that. Kanter on the other hand does have a knock due to concerns with his athleticism. He is best known for his play in the 2010 nike hoops summit, where he arguably outplayed. Sullinger. However, when I watch those highlights, it concerns me that he did not dunk one time. He doesn't seem to have much lift on his vertical in gameplay..... although I did see an impreesive clip of him dunking in practice.

Cleveland to host USRowing Masters Head Race National Championship in 2012 CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland will host a new national sporting event next year when the USRowing Masters Head Race National Championship comes to town Sept. 16. That announcement was made Tuesday in a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening of the Cleveland Rowing Foundation's $3 million home at Rivergate Park on the east bank of the Flats. The race will start and end on the Cuyahoga River at the Rivergate rowing facility on the Columbus Road peninsula. The 5,000-meter (3.1-mile) race is expected to draw more than 500 of the nation's top rowers ages 27 and older, said Theresa Gang, executive director of the Cleveland Rowing Foundation. She said the event will return every four years. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/cleveland_to_host_national_mas.html

Kanter is a 10-15 in most any other draft. He will be overvalued due to the lack of top flight big men. Williams is a SF in the NBA... and a good one at that. Him and Irving are the only two "can't miss" prospects in this draft.

Is that the "relief" bumsquare mentioned?

Not a Kanter fan from the limited film I have seen. The only big man I like in this draft is the kid from Brazil (Lucas Nogiera?), but #4 is probably too high for him and he is still a year or two away most likely. Irving without a doubt at #1. Duke returned the core of it championship team and Coach K still changed the offense to fit Irving's talents. That speaks volumes. I would be interested to see what Minny wants for us to move up to #2. Irving and Williams could be great together. If we can't get Williams, I think we have to take a good long hard look at Alec Burks. Or maybe we package that pick with part of our trade exception for a proven veteran like Andre Igoudala or Rudy Gay, both rumored to maybe be available at the right price.

Yes. It was the Clippers pick, with a 2.8% chance, that got us the #1. Welcome to Cleveland, Kyrie!

I retracted that comment.... but only for you, Jeff. I hope so too. For the Columbia's sake. I don't agree with your speculation as to the ultimate "effects" of building it as proposed, but I can see the concerns. Since you are privy to the information, maybe you can help me out. Did Gilbert explore possibilities with the lot between E 4th and E 6th? Why was that site ruled out? Who owns that lot (Frangos?) and what would it take to pry it away from them? What about the lot south of the existing garage for an expansion? I seem to remember that is slated for "future development" but am not sure what that means in their grand scheme. Basically, I guess I am asking what other options WERE considered and why was this design ultimately selected. I have read nothing but speculation up to this point, so if you can add some foundation to this whole debate, it would be greatly appreciated.

To the extent there is a problem, I think that would make it worse. I also think this has more to do with the Columbia building, and the strong feelings which are invoked by the proposed demolition, than anything about parking, ped bridges, and friendliness to pedestrians.

Again, thank you! My feelings exactly. Well put! See I told you most people here "get it" In theory, yes. In application, I have to disagree. I can certainly come up with some elaborate plans that ignore or don't take into proper account actual obstacles and real world factors. That's easy. Its much harder to find practical solutions, especially when we (random posters) are only privy to a fragment of the equation (see unaddressed questions I have from previous pages). Sorry to go against the grain. But please go ahead and push for the urban utopia I certainly would love to see :) Give 'em hell, gang.

I read that story. It says that Rosetta will continue to operate independently despite the change in ownership. Also, remember that Cleveland is not their HQs as some posters on cleveland.bomb seem to think.

Now you know that is exactly why people who are not urban ethusiasts might find it to be pedestrian 'unfriendly'..... which I never said, BTW. I just don't think the Casino's plan makes it "less friendly" than the status quo. If anything it will add car AND foot traffic to the stretch.

I am pretty sure I could come up with a worse plan for people. But why don't you elaborate. I want to be a believer ;)

Aside from a desire to preserve historic structures, which I am all for, I don't 'get it'. But I would welcome some feedback. I would hardly call this the 'only' option. I think Gilbert would admit that. The question is whether it is the "best option" for the City and the private interests (Gilbert, Columbia owners, etc). I 'hope' Gilbert and crew had some very, very long and detailed discussions behind closed doors about this. I have to think that they did given the amount of money involved. I also have to think that they explored a plethora of options, including the empty lots in the surrounding area. I certainly would have at least explored every 'viable' option. Point is that I get the sense that people think they hastily made this decision, whereas I know that each and every decision in mutli-million dollar developments are scrutinized to the fullest prior to even making any plans public. Some of your questions, I would ask the other way around. Is there any evidence that the Columbia building can be successfully rehabbed? Is there any legitimate desire to do so? Is it economically feasible? Some historic structures are simply beyond the point of no return. The truly iconic ones, I would fight tooth and nail for even if they have outlived their use. I don't find the Columbia to be in that category. But if a developer comes out tomorrow and says that he/she would like to sink the $$ into it, I will jump the fence in a heartbeat. I simply want confirmation as to its potential.

It certainly isn't anymore unfriendly than covered bus transfer stations you see in other cities, which I find to be a good idea.

Just as it is with other garages in the area, and especially during peak hours, I imagine that they might make that a right turn only coming out of the valet area.

Cross what? The exit for the valet area? I think I could make it without much trouble. How about suggesting some talking points? Factual support? Personally, I totally understand the 'preservation' aspect of this argument. I also would 'hope' that some developer would look favorably upon the Columbia for re-development. But I have never heard even a whisper on that possibility. Has there ever been any engineering studies on the current state of the building and what type of investment would be needed to re-purpose it?