Ugh...don't even get me started on Crapplebee's.

The Cheesecake factory always seems to have an extremely long wait from what Ive seen. I think if we had a big chain downtown, Cheesecake would be the best, because its not something that people have in every neighborhood and people seem to really like it

I am not sure if this was mentioned, but the last gasp of the Pesht project was Stark creating an alley of restaurants, like E. 4th, with places like Maggiano's and PF Chang's.

 

 

Here's the deal on chains,

If there are some that you like...go to them.

If there are some that your out-of-town visitors like, then take your visitors where they want to go.

If you have early-teen nephews/niece (as I do) who thrive on familiarity -- to a fault -- then let them eat where they want to.

 

If it's really more of a philosophical issue with you, then eat only at the independents and local chains. And go out of your way to support them, even more than usual to stick it to the chains.

 

 

 

^I think everyone agrees with that.  Nobody is looking to ban anything.  Probably not even picket or protest either :)

 

Re. Stark: I would worry a little about the cannibalization of existing high end places and probably wouldn't visit those places myself, but I would be more than happy to see their rent money help get a bunch of new housing built and be part of a critical mass that attracts new non-food rental.

Random question, is the Stanley Block Building big enough to hold a restaurant such as a Maggiano's. It seems like a prime location with the Casino (if Gilbert doesn't knock it down).

 

Edit: Just had a private group dinner in a ballroom at the Maggiano's in DT Chicago a couple of weeks ago.  Maggiano's on the mind.

 

^I think everyone agrees with that.  Nobody is looking to ban anything.  Probably not even picket or protest either :)

 

Eggsactly.  I don't see why some keep on wanting to re-direct the conversation to that strawman argument.

Random question, is the Stanley Block Building big enough to hold a restaurant such as a Maggiano's. It seems like a prime location with the Casino (if Gilbert doesn't knock it down).

 

Edit: Just had a private group dinner in a ballroom at the Maggiano's in DT Chicago a couple of weeks ago.  Maggiano's on the mind.

 

Maggiano's: The Italian Cheesecake Factory

Abuelo's: The Mexican Cheesecake Factory

PF Chang's: The Chinese Cheesecake Factory

 

People love, love, love that formula, though.

Remember Frank and Pauly's.... BP Atrium

Random question, is the Stanley Block Building big enough to hold a restaurant such as a Maggiano's. It seems like a prime location with the Casino (if Gilbert doesn't knock it down).

 

Edit: Just had a private group dinner in a ballroom at the Maggiano's in DT Chicago a couple of weeks ago.  Maggiano's on the mind.

 

Maggiano's: The Italian Cheesecake Factory

Abuelo's: The Mexican Cheesecake Factory

PF Chang's: The Chinese Cheesecake Factory

 

People love, love, love that formula, though.

I'd argue with that a little bit, at least the other three stick to a certain menu.  I can't figure out exactly what the Cheesecake factory is suppose to be. A menu as thick as a phone book with everything under the sun in it?

 

I'd argue with that a little bit, at least the other three stick to a certain menu.  I can't figure out exactly what the Cheesecake factory is suppose to be. A menu as thick as a phone book with everything under the sun in it?

 

I meant more from an aesthetic and health standpoint.  They all serve overpriced junk that people think is good because they have oversized tacky interior decorations and a recognizable name.

 

But, yeah, Cheesecake's menu is a hot mess.

^I think everyone agrees with that.  Nobody is looking to ban anything.  Probably not even picket or protest either :)

 

Eggsactly.  I don't see why some keep on wanting to re-direct the conversation to that strawman argument.

 

Let me revise this..... I will picket if PF Changs dares to bring that horse statue downtown.

I'd argue with that a little bit, at least the other three stick to a certain menu.  I can't figure out exactly what the Cheesecake factory is suppose to be. A menu as thick as a phone book with everything under the sun in it?

 

I meant more from an aesthetic and health standpoint.  They all serve overpriced junk that people think is good because they have oversized tacky interior decorations and a recognizable name.

 

But, yeah, Cheesecake's menu is a hot mess.

 

Like this comment.

 

 

Amazing the snobbish attitudes. You would swear from the comments Cleveland=Florence, Paris or NYC.  Comments like "disgusting" and "crappy" are so absurd! Often people go to higher end chains because the menu offers trusted items they enjoy. I have been to many an independent restaurant and was truly dissappointed in the quality of food. A good mixture is ideal. High-end chains kinda signal that you have arrived..... We have two districts  downtown where independents flourish. Euclid being the main artery, should offer more recognizable names for those who are at a convention or visiting the casino.

I can't believe this thread is still going. It is absurd, and will never happen.

If having chains is "arriving", I love living in a city that hasn't "arrived".  Who says you have to succumb to the corporate powers to be worthwhile?

 

The fact is that the food is of a lower (objective) quality than many comparable local restaurants at the same price level due to the fact that they CAN (thanks to having name recognition).

Amazing the snobbish attitudes. You would swear from the comments Cleveland=Florence, Paris or NYC.  Comments like "disgusting" and "crappy" are so absurd! Often people go to higher end chains because the menu offers trusted items they enjoy. I have been to many an independent restaurant and was truly dissappointed in the quality of food. A good mixture is ideal. High-end chains kinda signal that you have arrived..... We have two districts  downtown where independents flourish. Euclid being the main artery, should offer more recognizable names for those who are at a convention or visiting the casino.

 

Eaaaaaasssssy Trigger.  You asked for opinons and you got them.  Sorry that everyone doesn't agree with you, but you'll just have to live with that.  No need to call people snobish because they don't care for the typical fare at what you consider "quality" chains or agree with your speculative predictions on potential impact.

 

But I think you will get your wish when Uptown opens as far as some very recognizable brand names on Euclid Avenue.  These companies sees the right market conditions and they will pounce.  What is the argument beyond that?

Attitudes can be snobbish. When you call things gross or crappy, it also questions the judgement of those who eat there.

 

But , I live in Washington,DC now and I love the fact that we have a great mixture that caters to all.

How is somebody disliking bad food snobbish?  By the way, talking about one of America's great snobbish cities...DC...like most people in east coast cities when the topic of Midwest cities arises...but that is a whole different story and very much off topic.

On that same note, are we not allowed to criticize cookie-cutter subdivisions full of aluminum siding and three car garages taking up half or more of the frontage?  I mean.... heaven forbid, by doing so, we insult the people who live there.

Uh you live in DC.... That explains it. 

DC has millions of tourists that love that sh#t...  They wouldn't know quality if they saw it.. :wave:

 

But also, until fairly recently DC didn't really have much in the way of quality independent places.  It was the only city Ive ever been or lived in where you were better off recommending chains, because they had higher standards than the few crappy local places that catered to one time tourist visits or temporary residents that didn't care about anything other than the job they were here for. 

I agree, now they finally have a nice mix for the people here.

But still, I go to chains here that I would never go to in Cleveland. 

 

Another thing, Cleveland had quality independent places first and formost.  When there is a need for the other places they will happen.    (One of Clevelands greatest strengths is its independent, creative and great restaurant/food scene (just read the Post travel articles of Cleveland or DC Food bloggers)) .  Its also always usually the first thing visitors I bring from DC notice... the abundance of great independent places from coffee shops to bakeries to sports bars to restaurants etc...  Things they havent seen in DC, and they are always overly impressed and jealous in that (must just be the type of people I hang out with).

 

If Cleveland is snobbish food wise, good for them...  They have sophisticated palettes.  I know I cant wait to go back next weekend because of it.  Its much better than being snobbish because they think they are important as they are in DC....

 

When there develops an overwhelming need for the other stuff in order to make Cleveland seem more like everywhere else Im sure it will happen, but I certainly dont mind if the locals take care of some of the needs talked in this thread in the meantime. 

 

Keep it unique Cleveland!

How is somebody disliking bad food snobbish?  By the way, talking about one of America's great snobbish cities...DC...like most people in east coast cities when the topic of Midwest cities arises...but that is a whole different story and very much off topic.

 

Uh you live in DC.... That explains it. 

DC has millions of tourists that love that sh#t...  They wouldn't know quality if they saw it.. :wave:

 

But also, until fairly recently DC didn't really have much in the way of quality independent places.  It was the only city Ive ever been or lived in where you were better off recommending chains, because they had higher standards than the few crappy local places that catered to one time tourist visits or temporary residents that didn't care about anything other than the job they were here for. 

I agree, now they finally have a nice mix for the people here.

But still, I go to chains here that I would never go to in Cleveland. 

 

Another thing, Cleveland had quality independent places first and formost.  When there is a need for the other places they will happen.    (One of Clevelands greatest strengths is its independent, creative and great restaurant/food scene (just read the Post travel articles of Cleveland or DC Food bloggers)) .  Its also always usually the first thing visitors I bring from DC notice... the abundance of great independent places from coffee shops to bakeries to sports bars to restaurants etc...  Things they havent seen in DC, and they are always overly impressed and jealous in that (must just be the type of people I hang out with).

 

If Cleveland is snobbish food wise, good for them...  They have sophisticated palettes.  I know I cant wait to go back next weekend because of it.  Its much better than being snobbish because they think they are important as they are in DC....

 

When there develops an overwhelming need for the other stuff in order to make Cleveland seem more like everywhere else Im sure it will happen, but I certainly dont mind if the locals take care of some of the needs talked in this thread in the meantime. 

 

Keep it unique Cleveland!

 

You both aren't helping your cause.  Washington does have wonderful independent restaurants, much like Cleveland.  I think at times we tend to forget a healthy mixture of chains and independent restaurants makes a downtown much more healthy than either option.  Why?  Marketing.  Folks in Solon and folks in Ohio City both can enjoy whatever restaurant of their choosing without going the "urban snob" or "suburban oriented" routes.  The greatest downtowns do have a healthy mixture of independent, local restaurants and suburban-oriented chains.  I cannot think of one successful downtown that does not or is "strictly local" or "strictly chains."  For every Restaurant Row there is a Times Square; for every Boston Common there is a Quincy Market; blah blah you get the idea.

What cause..?  Your talking about differences of opinion which you as well have.  But you also dont live in DC or Cleveland, and yes as I said DC finally has some decent indy restaurants, but that is fairly recent...  Doesnt seem your aware of the terrible reputation the city food scene had not that long ago.  Its exploding now from the pent up demand... Its frankly a gold mine, but the talent is all imported.

Do I need to live in Washington or Cleveland to form an opinion on how a downtown can be at its healthiest by introducing a nice mixture of local and national restaurants?  I'm well aware of Washington's former reputation but that's former, much like Cleveland's old reputation of having a river on fire.  It's in the past and both cities have moved forward with progress.  There is no need to knock Washington's restaurant scene if it's progressing, much like London's old "stormy" culinary reputation is now all but gone.

And I would contend that chains are more a consequence than a cause of a vibrant downtown.  They're coming.  I'm nearly certain of that.

I wouldn't say consequence but more so of a "sign" of a healthier downtown.  No urban snob wants one but one couldn't simply deny their existence is tied with overall downtown health.  I think once a downtown gets to that critical mass, THEN the urban snob can justifiably say "pish posh, we don't need another PF Chang like downtown Indianapolis.  We need more Bhutanese!"  It's always great to support local (and I highly encourage it) but chains are simply an economic indicator of the current or future health of a downtown, and that generally extends well beyond Cheesecake Factories and Applebees.  That could mean department stores, retail, grocers, or even as simple as a CVS.

Do I need to live in Washington or Cleveland to form an opinion on how a downtown can be at its healthiest by introducing a nice mixture of local and national restaurants?  I'm well aware of Washington's former reputation but that's former, much like Cleveland's old reputation of having a river on fire.  It's in the past and both cities have moved forward with progress.  There is no need to knock Washington's restaurant scene if it's progressing, much like London's old "stormy" culinary reputation is now all but gone.

 

Understanding the landscape of the places that are being talked about and compared is pretty relevent, (especially in regard to this last page), it really helps to explain the attitutes towards this (just ask Chef Richard).  D.C. had a healthy downtown well before there were any decent indy places.... Its the nations capital!, it just made for a rather un-interesting place.   

 

Also, if we were on the subject of enveronmental issues which we are not, the Cuyahoga river is rather applicable to how we view the river today and a reason of much of the progress that has been made.  I would like to think that because of it Clevelanders are more environmentally conscious, I know the country is (the establishment of clean water standards).   

I wouldn't say consequence but more so of a "sign" of a healthier downtown.  No urban snob wants one but one couldn't simply deny their existence is tied with overall downtown health.  I think once a downtown gets to that critical mass, THEN the urban snob can justifiably say "pish posh, we don't need another PF Chang like downtown Indianapolis.  We need more Bhutanese!"  It's always great to support local (and I highly encourage it) but chains are simply an economic indicator of the current or future health of a downtown, and that generally extends well beyond Cheesecake Factories and Applebees.  That could mean department stores, retail, grocers, or even as simple as a CVS.

 

PF Chang won't come until there is a critical mass.  That's my point.  So I would agree somewhat on your indicator theory, although I would not label it an essential element to the equation.  Fridays is on Times Square because of the critical mass, not the other way around.  I wouldn't be surprised, busy as it may be, if that location actually operated at a loss in exchange for the brand recognition.

Do I need to live in Washington or Cleveland to form an opinion on how a downtown can be at its healthiest by introducing a nice mixture of local and national restaurants?  I'm well aware of Washington's former reputation but that's former, much like Cleveland's old reputation of having a river on fire.  It's in the past and both cities have moved forward with progress.  There is no need to knock Washington's restaurant scene if it's progressing, much like London's old "stormy" culinary reputation is now all but gone.

 

Understanding the landscape of the places that are being talked about and compared is pretty relevent, (especially in regard to this last page), it really helps to explain the attitutes towards this (just ask Chef Richard).  D.C. had a healthy downtown well before there were any decent indy places.... Its the nations capital!, it just made for a rather un-interesting place.   

 

Also, if we were on the subject of enveronmental issues which we are not, the Cuyahoga river is rather applicable to how we view the river today and a reason of much of the progress that has been made.  I would like to think that because of it Clevelanders are more environmentally conscious, I know the country is (the establishment of clean water standards).   

 

I never said you should deny the past.  I said forward progression is key in understanding the current landscapes of cities.  Whether it be a more healthy Cleveland or a more culinary-progressive Washington.  And with what I'm saying, a place could be mostly chains (formerly downtown Washington) or mostly independent (currently downtown Cleveland) and still not be as successful as either could be.  Downtown Indianapolis is a victim of "chain first, indie second" and they got criticizied initially, much as has been said about Washington.  Now, Indy has a growing Indy scene and their downtown is only going to get better.

 

I wouldn't say consequence but more so of a "sign" of a healthier downtown.  No urban snob wants one but one couldn't simply deny their existence is tied with overall downtown health.  I think once a downtown gets to that critical mass, THEN the urban snob can justifiably say "pish posh, we don't need another PF Chang like downtown Indianapolis.  We need more Bhutanese!"  It's always great to support local (and I highly encourage it) but chains are simply an economic indicator of the current or future health of a downtown, and that generally extends well beyond Cheesecake Factories and Applebees.  That could mean department stores, retail, grocers, or even as simple as a CVS.

 

PF Chang won't come until there is a critical mass.  That's my point.  So I would agree somewhat on your indicator theory, although I would not label it an essential element to the equation.  Fridays is on Times Square because of the critical mass, not the other way around.  I wouldn't be surprised, busy as it may be, if that location actually operated at a loss in exchange for the brand recognition.

 

That's not necessarily true.  You don't need critical mass in order to gain a PF Chang.  I think when a chain like PF Chang or Cheesecake Factory choose a downtown location, it's a "sign" for a healthier economic output/potential base for "tourists" (likely suburbanites and conventioneers).  For example, The Banks in Cincinnati is landing some New Orleans-based chains + other crap and yet no one is going to say downtown Cincinnati is at "critical mass" yet (though it is getting there and this Banks project is showing those "signs").

 

And regarding TGIF at Times Square, if anything, those TGIF and 2-story Olive Gardens helped create a new Disneyfied Times Square and not the other way around.  They are pieces, elements for which a once-hooker filled transit stop with a Sbarro became a sanitized toursit trap.  Times Square hit Disney critical mass due to your Fridays and Toys R' Us Ferris wheels moving in.  Chicken and the egg, perhaps, but both concurrent.

Critical mass is subjective and varies as far as what you are connecting the term to.  If a major chain is setting up somewhere, it is because market conditions are right or another project (such as the Banks) vgives the assurance of proper market conditions, not because it *hopes* that its arrival will bring about those market conditions.

 

Slightly related question - is Walmart an indicator of a healthy community?  By the same logic being applied to this thread, I woukd say yes.

Critical mass is subjective and varies as far as what you are connecting the term to.  If a major chain is setting up somewhere, it is because market conditions are right or another project (such as the Banks) vgives the assurance of proper market conditions, not because it *hopes* that its arrival will bring about those market conditions.

 

While I agree that critical mass is subjective, I disagree with the idea of "hope" isn't concurrent with "market conditions."  They run hand in hand.  There are countless examples of chains that have belly-flopped due to "hope" (aka market conditions decrease) or have flourished due to "hope" (aka chance; quite simply, luck).  Landing a Cheesecake Factory for, say, downtown Boise would go along way with local perception and chains + cities know that.  It certainly isn't due to any definition of critical mass that downtown Spokane has kept a Nordstrom for decades.  It's because civic leaders have focused their energy on these "staples" that keep people coming back to the downtown, much like a Cheesecake Factory in Boise would keep those folks out in Garden City coming back.

Slightly related question - is Walmart an indicator of a healthy community?  By the same logic being applied to this thread, I woukd say yes.

 

Ugh, I hate these edits! ;)

 

Depends.  If a Wal*Mart conforms to a city's existing form based code and markets itself within a certain context, then sure, it's a good health indicator.

 

But if it's just a Wal*Mart in desperation due to a food desert or lack of retail within a city, then no.  That's just Wal*Mart being Wal*Mart.

I wouldn't say consequence but more so of a "sign" of a healthier downtown.  No urban snob wants one but one couldn't simply deny their existence is tied with overall downtown health.  I think once a downtown gets to that critical mass, THEN the urban snob can justifiably say "pish posh, we don't need another PF Chang like downtown Indianapolis.  We need more Bhutanese!"  It's always great to support local (and I highly encourage it) but chains are simply an economic indicator of the current or future health of a downtown, and that generally extends well beyond Cheesecake Factories and Applebees.  That could mean department stores, retail, grocers, or even as simple as a CVS.

 

So downtown Frederick, MD is not economically healthy since there are NO chains?  Downtown Indianapolis is thriving because they have a bunch of chains downtown and ours is dead because there's almost none?

Downtown Frederick is an outlying exurban city for Balti-Wash.  They can afford to go chain-free in an otherwise gorgeous, somewhat wealthy historic district.  Same goes for places like Hudson, Ohio or Granville (even though both cities have chains, you get the idea).  Larger cities like Cleveland and, say, Detroit cannot be as picky in regards to who you want opening up at the Galleria or RenCen.

 

Now compare Frederick to a more downtown Hagerstown (which is not a healthy downtown), away from Washington's sphere, and you'd have a point.

 

And who said downtown Indianapolis is thriving due to chains?  Indianapolis has had many years in growing a healthy downtown and chains were a part of it but were not the reason.  Obviously larger things like conventions and (here it comes) "hope" (which in this case is a large mall which just-so-happened-worked-due-to-Simon).

And who said downtown Indianapolis is thriving due to chains?  Indianapolis has had many years in growing a healthy downtown and chains were a part of it but were not the reason.  Obviously larger things like conventions and (here it comes) "hope" (which in this case is a large mall which just-so-happened-worked-due-to-Simon).

 

What I meant was that Indianapolis has chains and I don't believe its downtown to be any "healthier" than Cleveland's.  My experience there is mostly weekend evenings though, so maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't get the feeling of a healthy downtown in Cleveland as much as or more than in Indianapolis.

Probably because I live closer to it, I have the opportunity to see it and it still is far more active than any downtown in Ohio (and I've been to them all, countless times).  It is a very healthy downtown, comparable to a Minneapolis or a Seattle, but on a smaller scale of course.  Numerous reasons being Simon's involvement, conventioneers, civic AND state pride, etc.  The main complaint is it's over-chained though there are numerous indie restaurants opening up all throughout the downtown so it's becoming less frequent to hear.

But CDM lives closer to Indy, so is authority...  As well as with DC and Cleveland....  Oh wait we live in those places..!  :evil:

 

*FYI, HTS removed his post, so now mine doesnt make as much sense.

Downtown Indy has a department store and all the satelliite retail that comes with, so I'd say it's considerably healthier.  One can actually go shopping there.  As such it draws a broader cross-section of its metro population than downtown Cleveland does.

Sounds like Downtown Cleveland in the mid 90's.

But CDM lives closer to Indy, so is authority...  As well as with DC and Cleveland....  Oh wait we live in those places..!  :evil:

 

*FYI, HTS removed his post, so now mine doesnt make as much sense.

 

No clue what this means...

 

Downtown Indy has a department store and all the satelliite retail that comes with, so I'd say it's considerably healthier.  One can actually go shopping there.  As such it draws a broader cross-section of its metro population than downtown Cleveland does.

 

It has several department stores but you're getting the idea.  Plus, Indianapolis is blessed with an outstanding corporate citizen (Simon) to help fuel this downtown renaissance.  Not to say Cleveland doesn't (I'd hope it'd have somebody that cares!).

 

Sounds like Downtown Cleveland in the mid 90's.

 

Sure, but Indianapolis was also that in the mid-90's as well.  The key is how to sustain it.

Sounds like Downtown Cleveland in the mid 90's.

 

Sure, but Indianapolis was also that in the mid-90's as well.  The key is how to sustain it.

 

Alright, you guys brought me back! :)

 

Why did we need to sustain that?  I think downtown is better off with E. 4th, W. 6th, a strengthened Playhouse Square, and sports stadiums than with a shopping mall and some chain restaurants.  Both bring in suburbanites, but I think the former brings in more of their dollars (and more urbanites as well).  It seems like the assumption is that we need to make Cleveland into an "urban Mentor" to make it "healthy", and I don't agree with that.

^I know you aren't saying otherwise, but the good things you like now could have coexisted with those old things.  The loss of good retail from Tower City hasn't been replaced in any form, really.  And for what its worth, I liked West 6th better 15 years ago a lot more than I do now...

 

This all gets back to what we want downtown Cleveland to be.  I'm fully on board with the idea that adding a full assortment of high end and mid end chains would probably attract a lot more people, but that presumes that's what we're looking for.  Perfectly natural presumption, as that is probably what most people have in mind when they think of downtown "revitalization" and what a lot of folks want to go visit.

 

But some of us are clearly part of what is probably a small minority of the region for whom downtown would be less attractive if those places took on too much of a presence (the way most lower Manhattanites disdain Times Square, I suppose), but even then I'd have to at least acknowledge the fiscal and economic benefits to the city and possible spin-off benefits for me in terms of non-food retail growth.

 

So to bring this full circle to Glenville's original question, I would be perfectly fine if the big fancy chains came downtown and in fact clustered in Tower City or even in new retail space near the Convention Center (like Pesht or the Galleria), but I would be a whole lot less thrilled if that's what ended up filling up Euclid Ave storefronts, which, selfishly, I'd much rather see be with more, er, interesting tenants that make locals feel good about Cleveland, or at least some non-food retail chains, which would actually add a whole new line of services to city residents.

You're jumping to from the idea that chains are needed for sustainability (however you want to define that) to the idea that chains can aid in sustainability.  I see those issues as distinct.  I also see a major distinction between chain restaurants and chain retail..... which we seem to have diverted this discussion to.  Also, the comparisons don't really hold up either.  Different things work in different places.  What TPTB should be working on, to the extent they can influence private development (a limitation some continue to ignore or don't realize), is what works for Cleveland.

 

I won't eat there (I guess because I am "snobbish") but come on down PF Changs, come on down Chili's, come on down IHOP, all are welcome to open a business.  NOBODY IS STOPPING THEM.

Sounds like Downtown Cleveland in the mid 90's.

 

Sure, but Indianapolis was also that in the mid-90's as well.  The key is how to sustain it.

 

Alright, you guys brought me back! :)

 

Why did we need to sustain that?  I think downtown is better off with E. 4th, W. 6th, a strengthened Playhouse Square, and sports stadiums than with a shopping mall and some chain restaurants.  Both bring in suburbanites, but I think the former brings in more of their dollars (and more urbanites as well).  It seems like the assumption is that we need to make Cleveland into an "urban Mentor" to make it "healthy", and I don't agree with that.

 

No.  I'm suggesting that a mixture of national and local retailers and restaurants has been a successful key in improving downtowns.  I'm not saying "Go out and make downtown Cleveland Crocker Park!"  I'm saying mixing Crocker Park with Coventry isn't a bad thing and can only bring more success.

 

You're jumping to from the idea that chains are needed for sustainability (however you want to define that) to the idea that chains can aid in sustainability.  I see those issues as distinct.  I also see a major distinction between chain restaurants and chain retail..... which we seem to have diverted this discussion to.  Also, the comparisons don't really hold up either.  Different things work in different places.  What TPTB should be working on, to the extent they can influence private development (a limitation some continue to ignore or don't realize), is what works for Cleveland.

 

I won't eat there (I guess because I am "snobbish") but come on down PF Changs, come on down Chili's, come on down IHOP, all are welcome to open a business.  NOBODY IS STOPPING THEM.

 

It's both, though I didn't say "you need chains" which is ENTIRELY different context than my point.  I'm not going to reiterate as I've addressed it above this quote but the idea of chains is only beneficial in a long term in aiding sustainability for a downtown.  Sure, different things work for different places but there are patterns for which things that do work and things that don't can be quite clear for any city.  And thus, I don't see how it's illogical to compare a downtown such as Indianapolis to another similar sized metropolitan area like Cleveland.  Sure, there are different dynamics (economies being the primary) but both are general American midsized cities with likeable demographics.  It isn't like I'm suggesting Porto to be the gold standard of the Galleria.