tedolph

still the "best location in the nation!"

Excellent anaysis Clvlndr

Fascinating post. I too have an affinity for self sufficiency that is not completely rational.

Now that the Tower has been cleaned I really like the way the new buildings flanking the Skylight Concourse blend in architecturally. Before, they seemed a little of a mismatch for the tower.

I have a question for you "sprawlsperts". Maybe this has been previously answered but I didn't find it. On the east side of Cleveland, where does sprawl start, Shaker Heights, Maple Heights, Beachwood, Pepper Pike, Moreland Hills, Solon or beyond? What exactly, is the criterion?

KJP, sorry to keep pestering you on this issue but it seems to me that the I 90 bridge idea keeps getting worse and worse. Furthermore, the political opposition seems to be rising against it. Considering that this is an election year, have any of the mayoral opponents seen your alternative proposal? I think that politically it is now a winner.

I have always thought that the TT is one of the most beautiful skyscrapers in the U.S. I whish they would have gotten rid of those two microwave dishes at the 42nd floor level. They can't generate that much revenue! I also hope that when the observation deck is opened on that floor that the 43rd floor outdoor deck is opened as well. Does anyone have any old pictures/info of the 43rd. floor deck?

I don't have much to add to this discussion but have a question. I have very strong Libertarian leanings but understand the concept of external economies where government subsidy/taxation is appropriate. I am also a very strong supporter of public transportation, and use it currently. The anti-public transportation people baffle me, there position makes no sense economically for sure. What I am wondering is considering that I am politically disinclined to support government intervention is my support of public transportation primarily driven by early personal experience? When I think of public transportation I do not think of Seattle Metro (which I currently use). Instead the vision that pops into my head is the Shaker Rapid circa 1970. Cheap, Fast, Fun, economically viable. Who wouldn't like that? Is it those kind of experiences that the non-transit people need to convince them and if so how do we do that or are those days just gone?

"The "Seattle brouhaha" was overblown. I've heard interviews/read interview transcripts from different people who were there. They all say the "rioters" were a tiny minority, but controversy sells news, so it was hyped up beyond reality. " It was not overblown. I was there. It was ugly and scarry. If you want to know more, let me know.

thanks for the detailed response.

Really, 20 mph? Does that seem inherently dangerous to you? Maybe we should take this to PM?

At the risk of getting censored or suspended I will say that there are some bicyclists who actively defend their right to cycle on these types of trails as speeds up to or exceeding 20 mph! What do you think of that?

S'matter-ya'll afraid of aboitic oil?

I am sure I am going to be sorry for saying this but if the corners of the proposed tower were curved, I would have liked that design, maybe not for that part of Euclid but somewhere else downtown.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The heralded Burke Gilman trail in Seattle is a classic example. Former RR right of way. Not much wider with heavy traffic in both directions and multiple street and driveway crossings with blind approaches. Talk about a suicide ride and this is it. Lots of accidents (many with serious injuries) yet still very popular. I believe that there have been fatalities. Fortunately I live on the opposite side of town but when I lived closer I avoided it like the plague.

Bicyclists and pedestrians are inherently incompatible. There are no "rules of the road" for pedestrians. I avoid such paths whenever possible. On the occasion I do have to take a short section of one. Based on that experience I removed my bell. I found it is easier to sneak by a pedestrian (slowly) rather than ring the bell which 50% of the time results in the pedestrian jumping to the left into my path. It is just better to use a parallel road when possible.

I have kept up with the forum and I really don't know all of what was done and not done. Neither does anybody else here as we do not have access to that confidential information. What I do know is that it was not enough. There is plenty of vacant land in Cleveland to build a "suburban" style park. It appears to me that not enough was offered.

Sorry for the confusion. The abiotic oil theory is not new, just newly testable. Conventional theory says that decomposing biotic material (e.g. algae) under the right conditions (anaerobic decomposition I believe) produces petroleum in a biological process. The abiotic oil theory postulates that although some oil may be produced in this way, most of the oil we use seeped up from deep within the Earth's crust by catalytic reformation of methane gas (same process used by the Nazis in WWII). The oil we use is thus both a product of nonrenewable primordial chemistry and of renewable biological material due to common decomposition of under high heat and pressure due to the depth below the earth's surface). This was recently confirmed (last two years) when the Russians drilled 5 or 7 (I forget) miles below the surface and hit oil. As no dinosaur or other biological materials are or ever were present at this depth this is believed to be confirmation of the abiotic theory of oil synthesis. Liquid methane was also recently discovered on Titan which surely didn't have any dinosaurs. Futher confirmation that methane, the raw material for abiotic oil production was abundant in the early solar system and thus presumably currently present in the deep earth crust. The significance of all of this is that if correct, petroleum is a renewable (sort of) resource as methane producing biotic material is subducted into the crust by plate tectonics where it is catalytically reformed into oil. I say "sort of" because although this process is now known to occur, recovery is very expensive. Extremely deep drilling will be necessary for commercial production, think on the order of 20 miles, and the rate of catalyzation is not known. Please understand that I am neither a geologist nor a chemical engineer and this is my best understanding. So, the question I have is assuming the above is correct, how does it affect the above economic analysis. Thanks.

"Moving that company from downtown to the beachwood corridor, give the impression that the city & county government along with other business leaders couldn't work to keep Eaton DT and creates the perception that businesses are leaving Cleveland when in fact with the loss of some major company's it's still one of the top 10 CBDs in the country." Exactly, that's why no expense shoudl have been spared to keep them downtown even if it meant building them a "suburban" campus (i.e. moving the rail line). The maro payoff would have exceeded the cost.

An excellent thread (especially the economic impact discussion) that I have not contributed to because I don't feel that I know as much as those of you who are carrying the discussion. I do have a question though. Assume for proposes of argument that the Russian conclusion that petroleum is not primarily a fossil fuel but results from abiotic processes deep within the earth requiring drilling on the order of miles, not feet. How does this impact the above analysis, if at all? BTW, based on findings from the moons of Jupiter I believe that the Russians are at least partially correct.

Outstanding post, outstanding pictures, outstanding thread (a mini-course in comparative urban transportation development, civil discussion. I learned a lot. Thank you gentlemen.

Want to create critical mass downtown? Induce Eaton to stay and expand. If Jackson and Strickland are really doing all they can to retain businesses they could at least convince me of that. If what they did is what they have disclosed to date then that was an inadequate effort. I also think the effort (at least public display of effort) was inadequate with respect to the loss of BP (couldn't we have at least kept the research facility in Warrensville Hts?), Diamond Shamrock, East Ohio Gas, First Energy, Addressograph Multigraph (Harris), etc. Can you imagine what downtown Cleveland would look like today if we had retained just two of these companies, all of them? It would be a miniature New York. The Mayoral culture for the past 30 years has been abysmal (other than Vonovich and maybe Mike White) towards big business. Corporations were evil and poor people were saints. I think we voted for poverty first mayors and poverty we got. Yea, yea I know about macro economic forces and look at other industrial cities suffering the similar fates but I just don't believe that a city with Cleveland's strenghts/assets is/was totally at the mercy of economic circumstances. We did nothing to make our luck and instead catered to the poor. There, I said it.

Demolition of Cortlett without saving the facade is a discrace. The Dunham tavern plan is brilliant. This is green space I can approve of.

If the restoration is faithful to the original, that building (and the corner) are going to be gorgeoius!

Depends where your door is.