25 minutes ago, tykaps said:

https://www.freshwatercleveland.com/breaking-ground/CedarLee072921.aspx

An update on the Cedar Lee project

Glad to see this is moving forward. I was fearful they'd fold to the pressure of turning the empty lot into a "park".

In true Cleveland Heights fashion this still has a long way to go before any ground will be broken.  They probably won't have an actual development agreement executed until well into the fall (if not later) and then the actual plan needs to be revealed (right now very conceptual) which will take time and them the endless community meetings in the most "transparent" city on the face of the earth where talking every thing to death is a spectator sport, the arch. reviews and then the usual delays even once approved as is standard in CH

We have a new winner for worst take on nextdoor re the Meadowbrook and Lee development. This one will be hard to top!! 

^How will the businesses attract customers if there are too many potential customers living next door?

23 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

^How will the businesses attract customers if there are too many potential customers living next door?

the gist of my response

As a pro-development/density Cleveland Heights resident I must say I’m somewhat concerned about those parking numbers - assuming they’re correct. Additional residents right next door is a plus for theater attendance but you can only expect a few hundred people to attend so often. I don’t think a few hundred folks right next door is enough to make up for making attendance inconvenient for the entire heights area. 

Won't the parking spaces be used at different times by different customer/residents? Shared parking is essential in urban areas.

I think there will be more than enough parking in Cedar Lee. The garage was built with a whole floor dedicated for exclusive use by the apartment residents in whatever building will eventually be built at the Meadowbrook site. As far as I know, that floor has never been open to the public for parking.

The lot that will be redeveloped is never 100% full. The garage is presumably only full of cobwebs although no one knows because no one has actually been inside it to check. There will be plenty parking 98% of the time. And in that 2% when the garage fills up, there are hundreds of potential spots on nearby side streets. People come en masse to the Cain Park arts festival and there’s actually no lot or garage parking at all for that. The side streets can absorb a lot. This is a nonexistent problem.

36 minutes ago, Vincent_G said:

I think there will be more than enough parking in Cedar Lee. The garage was built with a whole floor dedicated for exclusive use by the apartment residents in whatever building will eventually be built at the Meadowbrook site. As far as I know, that floor has never been open to the public for parking.

Was going to say the same thing. The garage was built for a development a number of years ago. Previous to it there was a parking lot there with that provided only about 1/4 of the spaces the garage does. Parking is not an issue for this area, pre or post this development. CH needs new businesses and residents, that's what this development provides.

Agree the garage is largely unused - but eliminate the lot and fill the garage with cars from new residents and things can tighten up quickly. Secondary lots are quite small. Side streets offer some relief but many theater attendees are older and won’t want to walk for the distance and safety concerns. Will be exacerbated in the winter months. Perhaps a valet service could help. 

You guys are talking about Cleveland Heights. They will study and analyze the parking ramifications of this development to death. Then they will talk about it and talk about it and talk about it. Believe me, there Will be plenty of parking.

Well, that much is true! 

1 hour ago, OldEnough said:

Agree the garage is largely unused - but eliminate the lot and fill the garage with cars from new residents and things can tighten up quickly. Secondary lots are quite small. Side streets offer some relief but many theater attendees are older and won’t want to walk for the distance and safety concerns. Will be exacerbated in the winter months. Perhaps a valet service could help. 

they actually proposed a valet for Cedar Lee if the parking becomes an issue, but the same anti folks are arguing that an elderly person on a fixed income won’t be able to afford that.  

7 hours ago, Htsguy said:

You guys are talking about Cleveland Heights. They will study and analyze the parking ramifications of this development to death. Then they will talk about it and talk about it and talk about it. Believe me, there Will be plenty of parking.

 

And then the next market correction comes and the project dies and we all start all over again. It really does surprise me how different the CH resident reaction to this (and Top of the Hill) is compared to the Shaker reaction to the massive glass high rises coming to Van Aken. Just down the street, but a world away - and Shaker is usually the one assumed to be more stodgy and conservative.

 

If the project turns out anything like the proposal, it will be a great addition to the street, and fit in very well with the neighborhood. Unlike going to OC/DS/UC/Tremont, parking is one thing I have never worried about with going to Cedar-Lee.  

I live a stone’s throw from Top of the Hill. And although I walk there, parking can be a challenge at busy times (a positive sign) but the new garage there seems to represent a net gain in parking. The land built on was largely unused or surface parking. Cedar Lee is a different story - with the development creating a net loss in parking and more competition for what’s left. I see the plus side of this as well - but not everyone shares the sensibilities of the Urban Ohio forum loyalists. And parking convenience is a factor. Van Aken is very easy to park at - and will remain so even after the new apartments are built. It’s fair for business owners there to express concern. 

Building owners at Cedar Lee I should have said. 

25 minutes ago, OldEnough said:

I live a stone’s throw from Top of the Hill. And although I walk there, parking can be a challenge at busy times (a positive sign) but the new garage there seems to represent a net gain in parking. The land built on was largely unused or surface parking. Cedar Lee is a different story - with the development creating a net loss in parking and more competition for what’s left. I see the plus side of this as well - but not everyone shares the sensibilities of the Urban Ohio forum loyalists. And parking convenience is a factor. Van Aken is very easy to park at - and will remain so even after the new apartments are built. It’s fair for business owners there to express concern. 

The baselines for parking between Cedar Lee and Cedar Fairmount are very different. Cedar Fairmount is occasionally hard to park in but Cedar Lee never really is.

Could it be argued that with the additional parking garage built for a new development at CF, there will likely be sufficient parking spaces. Therefore the parking garage built for similar purposes at CL provides equally sufficient amount of parking?

 

It is disappointing that the expectation is that parking should be right in front of where one is going. Somehow walking a few extra hundred yards or another block is therefore not worth the investment in your community. For me, when visiting CL, I usually park on the side streets because during non-covid times it's the only free parking in CH. But that's probably because I'm cheap and trying to lose some weight.

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by scg80

1 hour ago, WhatUp said:

Shame on me for ignoring the other crane that has been just out of frame up the hill 😑

pic from about 30 minutes ago. 

 

@WhatUpHere's a few views from up the hill (and up the garage) to compensate. I've been meaning to post for a couple days so thanks for giving me a good opportunity. The one crane that has been inactive (AFAIK) is a bit hard to see as it is right in front of the sun. I wish the Garfield Monument had their upper balcony open right now for the views, but it is still closed due to Covid even though lower levels are open.

 

Edit: You can see slightly see the progress on the apartments across Euclid Heights as well.

 

 

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by kevincle

College Club Townhomes (8-1-21)

 

 

 

Overlook Park Apartments

 

 

 

Top of the Hill

 

 

 

 

Love that first angle of Top of the Hill.

17 hours ago, OldEnough said:

I live a stone’s throw from Top of the Hill. And although I walk there, parking can be a challenge at busy times (a positive sign) but the new garage there seems to represent a net gain in parking. The land built on was largely unused or surface parking. Cedar Lee is a different story - with the development creating a net loss in parking and more competition for what’s left. I see the plus side of this as well - but not everyone shares the sensibilities of the Urban Ohio forum loyalists. And parking convenience is a factor. Van Aken is very easy to park at - and will remain so even after the new apartments are built. It’s fair for business owners there to express concern. 

 

The city will be conducting a comprehensive traffic and parking study.  Community engagement begins soon - if you're a resident, participate:

Quote

1. Kick-Off Parking & Traffic Community Workshop #1 on existing conditions (8/5, 6 PM at the
[Main] Library)

2. Public Spaces and Connectivity Open House (8/12 New Date 8/11, 6 PM, Atrium at City Hall)

3. Architectural Board of Review (ABR) Preliminary Design Review Special Meeting (Date and Time
TBD, Council Chambers)

4. Planning & Development Committee of Council Meeting including Committee workshop on
redevelopment of Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook (Date and Time TBD, Council Chambers)

5. Parking & Traffic Community Workshop #2 on recommendations (Date, Time, Location TBD)

https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/9557/Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook-Framework-of-Meetings-Framework_20210803?bidId=

 

https://www.clevelandheights.com/1154/Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook

Went to the meeting last night, half the people walked there and in general I got the vibe that people weren't too worried about parking. I also learned that it's all free parking, I've driven to Cedar-Lee so I didn't realize that. Talking to the people they said that the only time parking approaches capacity is on Friday and Saturday nights and even then it's only like 80% of capacity of off street parking. There was one old lady NIMBY there with flyers about the keeping that grass field and was arguing that she should get to talk at next weeks meeting about public spaces. 

 

 

Good to hear about the parking.  I'm all for greenspaces but in Cleveland Hts. but the reality is we tend to not even leverage them well when they're available.  Meadowbrook and Lee being a great example.  Where Top of the Hill is going is another one.  There's also the space at Euclid Hts. and Derbyshire.  Just throw a picnic table in there and call it a day!  I'd get behind preserving them if the city did more to make them usable.  I'm sure private owners are one barrier but in general there seems no will to make more of these opportunities.  

22 minutes ago, OldEnough said:

Good to hear about the parking.  I'm all for greenspaces but in Cleveland Hts. but the reality is we tend to not even leverage them well when they're available.  Meadowbrook and Lee being a great example.  Where Top of the Hill is going is another one.  There's also the space at Euclid Hts. and Derbyshire.  Just throw a picnic table in there and call it a day!  I'd get behind preserving them if the city did more to make them usable.  I'm sure private owners are one barrier but in general there seems no will to make more of these opportunities.  

What you say is totally true. This is also an area that doesn't really need more greenspace. Cain Park is over 20 acres and is a 15 minute walk from the site. Cumberland Park is a similar size and slightly longer walk. To the south, there is some good green space at Farifax Elementary.

 

And of course this whole discussion ignores the fact that the development will include a small park. 

The secret to that conundrum is that greenspaces aren't built to be used by people, they are built to be blank spaces that people don't use.

3 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

What you say is totally true. This is also an area that doesn't really need more greenspace. Cain Park is over 20 acres and is a 15 minute walk from the site. Cumberland Park is a similar size and slightly longer walk. To the south, there is some good green space at Farifax Elementary.

 

And of course this whole discussion ignores the fact that the development will include a small park. 

 100%.  And there's that strip of green between Lee and the high school football stadium that could be improved as well.

 

The developer's proposed park space runs from Meadowbrook to the wall that runs parallel to Meadowbrook. 

 

Compare https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4993453,-81.5648947,142a,35y,90h/data=!3m1!1e3 

 

and

 

2 hours ago, X said:

The secret to that conundrum is that greenspaces aren't built to be used by people, they are built to be blank spaces that people don't use.

Truth. I live right by this project and have had neighbors online and in person tell me I must hate green space because this I'm in favor of this development. When I said I'd rather look at a neighborhood than a parking garage, their complaint was that this would mean removing trees and that the development would "block out the sky". This is the little area at the border of the lot and my street. Other than a few dog walkers, myself included, this space is unused. But what exactly would one do here?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4999955,-81.5637059,3a,75y,260.15h,71.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUKsb_LMJx8_mWAsU7gs65A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

What I have learned over time is that many people, not like those of us on UO, have trouble visualizing imagery presented by developers through both plan and concept views. It's easier to say no to something you don't completely understand, then it is to trust that what someone is putting forth is a good concept and will have provide the resources you may want in your community.

34 minutes ago, cityEscape said:

Truth. I live right by this project and have had neighbors online and in person tell me I must hate green space because this I'm in favor of this development. When I said I'd rather look at a neighborhood than a parking garage, their complaint was that this would mean removing trees and that the development would "block out the sky". This is the little area at the border of the lot and my street. Other than a few dog walkers, myself included, this space is unused. But what exactly would one do here?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4999955,-81.5637059,3a,75y,260.15h,71.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUKsb_LMJx8_mWAsU7gs65A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This looks like a perfect spot for the park that people want as, unless I'm mistaken, that area is not part of the proposed development.

34 minutes ago, cityEscape said:

Truth. I live right by this project and have had neighbors online and in person tell me I must hate green space because this I'm in favor of this development. When I said I'd rather look at a neighborhood than a parking garage, their complaint was that this would mean removing trees and that the development would "block out the sky". This is the little area at the border of the lot and my street. Other than a few dog walkers, myself included, this space is unused. But what exactly would one do here?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4999955,-81.5637059,3a,75y,260.15h,71.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUKsb_LMJx8_mWAsU7gs65A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I've heard those voices, and I agree with this

3 minutes ago, scg80 said:

What I have learned over time is that many people, not like those of us on UO, have trouble visualizing imagery presented by developers through both plan and concept views. It's easier to say no to something you don't completely understand, then it is to trust that what someone is putting forth is a good concept and will have provide the resources you may want in your community.

 

I also think looking at a row of townhouses will be much more pleasant and interesting to look at than a parking garage, and there will still be room for trees. 

 

We're also getting ahead of ourselves -- the city does not yet have a development agreement in place.  This whole project could still fail to materialize.

 

 

A woman spoke at Monday's city council meeting about the missing bollards to the right of your image, between the end of Cedarbrook and the parking lot, and problems with speeding drivers cutting through.  Hopefully that gets corrected quickly.  (Cedarbrook used to continue to Lee Rd. -- through the pocket park between Boss Dog and the theater building.)  I'm very much looking forward to this development, but there are lots of places where the details will make a big difference.  Glad to have local City Architecture involved.

6 minutes ago, smith said:

This looks like a perfect spot for the park that people want as, unless I'm mistaken, that area is not part of the proposed development.

Developer has proposed wrapping the back side of the parking garage with townhouses.  Very preliminary though, may or may not be part of the final design.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

I've heard those voices, and I agree with this

 

I also think looking at a row of townhouses will be much more pleasant and interesting to look at than a parking garage, and there will still be room for trees. 

 

We're also getting ahead of ourselves -- the city does not yet have a development agreement in place.  This whole project could still fail to materialize.

 

 

A woman spoke at Monday's city council meeting about the missing bollards to the right of your image, between the end of Cedarbrook and the parking lot, and problems with speeding drivers cutting through.  Hopefully that gets corrected quickly.  (Cedarbrook used to continue to Lee Rd. -- through the pocket park between Boss Dog and the theater building.)  I'm very much looking forward to this development, but there are lots of places where the details will make a big difference.  Glad to have local City Architecture involved.

Yeah, that woman was me. 🙂

Love the additional sidewalk space created along Cedar here. They’ve done a nice job with the planters but the Jersey barriers are hideous as always. Seems like a no-brainer as the lost lane is used for parking and there’s no shortage with the new garage. Anyone know if there are plans to make this permanent and perhaps more attractive? 

I cannot imagine those are permanent but just being used as a safety device during the construction of top of the hill a few yards down.  The entire landscaping of Cedar Farimount the past few years was well done and pretty well maintained.

It would be great if Cedar could be narrowed permanently in that block. Cedar Fairmount is one of the best older commercial districts, but that wide street is a real drawback.

59 minutes ago, OldEnough said:

Love the additional sidewalk space created along Cedar here. They’ve done a nice job with the planters but the Jersey barriers are hideous as always. Seems like a no-brainer as the lost lane is used for parking and there’s no shortage with the new garage. Anyone know if there are plans to make this permanent and perhaps more attractive? 

As of the city council packet for August 16th, this is referred to as a "temporary parklet" originally conceived to allow the nearby businesses to have an outdoor space for dining during COVID. (https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/9630/City-Council-Packet-August-16-2021?bidId=)

 

Interestingly, from the March 19th packet, the original design proposed would have repositioned the concrete planters to serve as the barrier, rather than Jersey barriers and would have used some sort of decorative signage to alert motorists and pedestrians. (https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/9062/City-Council-Packet-March-19-2021?bidId=)

 

Totally agree though -- I wish they'd make this permanent and Jersey-barrier free.

16 minutes ago, Vincent_G said:

It would be great if Cedar could be narrowed permanently in that block. Cedar Fairmount is one of the best older commercial districts, but that wide street is a real drawback.

Pretty sure that would never happen.  Cedar at that point is a major commuting route into UC and downtown.  I am sure over the years you have experienced major backups going down the hill (especially with an accident or even a minor weather event) even at its current width.

On 8/21/2021 at 11:22 AM, Htsguy said:

Pretty sure that would never happen.  Cedar at that point is a major commuting route into UC and downtown.  I am sure over the years you have experienced major backups going down the hill (especially with an accident or even a minor weather event) even at its current width.

Yes, I have seen backups on the hill, but usually only if there is an accident or extreme weather, and the loss of the lane that is now blocked by the jersey barriers doesn't seem to have slowed traffic. Even when that lane is open, it is often not passable during rush hour because of cars stopping to pick up at Starbucks. I think a few spots could be opened back up for the coffee traffic with the rest remaining closed permanently.

Agree 100% with Htsguy.  That lane is out of play all day anyway - and not a factor from a traffic standpoint.  I suppose not developing the space would allow for future flexibility given UCs growth.  That said, Cleveland still has virtually zero traffic issues as compared to other major cities - and I feel livability should get the nod here.  

Planning and Development Committee of Council on Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook on September 1st at 6pm: "Meeting will be on urban design in City Chambers. The public will also interact in an urban design open house in the Atrium at the same time." (https://www.clevelandheights.com/1154/Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook)

On 8/21/2021 at 11:02 AM, Vincent_G said:

It would be great if Cedar could be narrowed permanently in that block. Cedar Fairmount is one of the best older commercial districts, but that wide street is a real drawback.

I've heard from one of the businesses that it is suppose to last until October but they are trying to get it extended until December. No doubt the weather and snow plows might keep that October deadline.

On 8/21/2021 at 11:22 AM, Htsguy said:

Pretty sure that would never happen.  Cedar at that point is a major commuting route into UC and downtown.  I am sure over the years you have experienced major backups going down the hill (especially with an accident or even a minor weather event) even at its current width.

I hope you turn out to be wrong about it never happening.  I don't care if traffic backs up, there are alternate routes to relieve the pressure.  The wide streets, lack of shade and lack of sidewalk activity depress business activity in this business district -- commuter routes (highways) don't bring revenue to the inner ring.  Those commuters are just passing through.  The city did not contribute to this project, it was all the merchants.  The merchants who banded together to get the jersey barriers out and create some outdoor dining space have really done wonders for the pedestrian experience. 

 

I agree  with everyone who says the street is too wide.  The street really needs better pedestrian refuges in the middle.  The traffic light situation is a mess too.  I'd really like to see some creative engineering company review the traffic and redesign the street throughout this business district to make it a more pleasant place for pedestrians and cyclists. 

 

If we're going to wish lists, I'd also like to see a BRT line from the Cedar Hill rapid station out Cedar to Beachwood (or even better, a trolley and we bring back the rails in the road).  We don't have the density to justify it now, but if the plan for such a line could be put on the table, with conditions that it's only going to happen once there are X,000 people within a half mile of some high percentage of the stops, then the cities along the route will have some justification for increasing density.  Top of the Hill is going to help Cedar-Fairmount, and hopefully Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook will be next. 

22 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I hope you turn out to be wrong about it never happening.  I don't care if traffic backs up, there are alternate routes to relieve the pressure.  The wide streets, lack of shade and lack of sidewalk activity depress business activity in this business district -- commuter routes (highways) don't bring revenue to the inner ring.  Those commuters are just passing through.  The city did not contribute to this project, it was all the merchants.  The merchants who banded together to get the jersey barriers out and create some outdoor dining space have really done wonders for the pedestrian experience. 

 

I agree  with everyone who says the street is too wide.  The street really needs better pedestrian refuges in the middle.  The traffic light situation is a mess too.  I'd really like to see some creative engineering company review the traffic and redesign the street throughout this business district to make it a more pleasant place for pedestrians and cyclists. 

 

If we're going to wish lists, I'd also like to see a BRT line from the Cedar Hill rapid station out Cedar to Beachwood (or even better, a trolley and we bring back the rails in the road).  We don't have the density to justify it now, but if the plan for such a line could be put on the table, with conditions that it's only going to happen once there are X,000 people within a half mile of some high percentage of the stops, then the cities along the route will have some justification for increasing density.  Top of the Hill is going to help Cedar-Fairmount, and hopefully Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook will be next. 

Again all of what you say about creating a better pedestrian experience is wonderful and I would certainly like to see it happen but I have to double down and say that Cedar at that point is too important and busy a route into UC and downtown that it would take a miracle (especially in talk and study every thing to death Cleveland Hts., a city that seems to move at two speeds, slow and stop) for lane reduction to happen.  You say that we should rely on alternate route down the hill when traffic backs up, but the problem is that those alternate routes back up just as bad if not worst.  I can recall countless times driving down Euclid Hts Blvd when one of these traffic events occurs and reaching a point where for some reason, well back from the hill, traffic just stops  for no apparent reason.  I, along with many others, then begin turning around and foolishly hunting for other routes down the hill but only find roads like Cedar and Edgehill are just as backed up if not worst.  A couple of times I even drove back to Lee Rd and took it down to East Cleveland to Euclid just to avoid the mess.

 

Good traffic planning may be a solution but there is probably only so much they can do with timing lights and redesigning streets.  With no freeways in the area (thank God) it is a unrefutable reality that Cedar is a highway for not only large portions of the Heights but also farther away Hillcrest.  

 

And I hate to say it again but even if there is a "way" to calm traffic at this point and create a better pedestrian experience I don't know if there is a "will", especially with all the other problems Cleveland Heights faces.

19 hours ago, Htsguy said:

And I hate to say it again but even if there is a "way" to calm traffic at this point and create a better pedestrian experience I don't know if there is a "will", especially with all the other problems Cleveland Heights faces.

 

You may be right about that.  New mayor, lot of new faces on council, new city manager, new police chief -- a lot of change coming to CH government next year. 

 

I do think that the current  "parking lane" being overtaken by the jersey barriers shows that that lane is not needed for traffic.  And in fact I think its presence contributed to traffic problems as cars merged in and out.  (Make cars change lanes before they enter the business district and as they leave the business district to limit the lane-changing within the business district and traffic should flow more smoothly.)  So I hope we can keep that curbside lane as a pedestrian/outdoor dining space and improve upon it.  I'd also still like to see some pedestrian refuges in the middle of the street given how wide the street is.  I think those two things, while small really, would make a difference. 

 

I don't foresee having fewer than two lanes in each direction for the foreseeable future.  Actually reducing lanes is a long-term endeavor that will require a lot of study and thought to do well. 

As someone who has commuted from CH and SH to UC for about the last 25 years, I'd be hesitant in reducing traffic lanes in the CF intersection. Traveling from most of those two suburbs to UC is limited to only about 4 routes down the hill, unless one chooses to drive twice as far by going down Woodland or Superior. With this, if a backup occurs (accident, roadwork) on 1 of 4 routes, ultimately all 4 will be backed up. CF yields to the most amount of cars in the morning and afternoon and reducing traffic lanes will inevitably cause backups on all routes. Making the pedestrian experience in CF better should be a priority, but reducing traffic lanes is not a feasible solution.

 

Also, I think our perspective on how much traffic runs through CF is skewed the last two years due to the pandemic and the UC schools/workplaces being remote.

9 hours ago, scg80 said:

As someone who has commuted from CH and SH to UC for about the last 25 years, I'd be hesitant in reducing traffic lanes in the CF intersection. Traveling from most of those two suburbs to UC is limited to only about 4 routes down the hill, unless one chooses to drive twice as far by going down Woodland or Superior. With this, if a backup occurs (accident, roadwork) on 1 of 4 routes, ultimately all 4 will be backed up. CF yields to the most amount of cars in the morning and afternoon and reducing traffic lanes will inevitably cause backups on all routes. Making the pedestrian experience in CF better should be a priority, but reducing traffic lanes is not a feasible solution.

 

Also, I think our perspective on how much traffic runs through CF is skewed the last two years due to the pandemic and the UC schools/workplaces being remote.

 

 

Don't shoot me, bit I think the best solution at the Cedar/Euclid Heights intersection, thru Cedar Fairmount is a Pedestrian Brodge over Cedar. Infrastructure wide it would probably be less expensive than trying to re-engineer these intersections and it would provide hassle free crossing for pedestrians. Given the lack of space on the landing side on the sidewalk on the north and south sides of Cedar, you would probably have to add elevators for access, but this way you make it easy to cross, and don't crimp the flow of vehicular traffic through these intersections.

The reality is that this is NOT a traffic-bearing lane - even in the mornings, it's metered parking for Starbuck's etc.  So the impact is not traffic capacity - at least now - it's a few metered spots in exchange for the expanding outdoor seating.  And given that there is ample parking options on the neighboring side streets and the garage behind Starbuck's it seems to be a no-brainer.  The businesses would have to weigh the ROI of course but that's another issue.

 

1 hour ago, OldEnough said:

The reality is that this is NOT a traffic-bearing lane - even in the mornings, it's metered parking for Starbuck's etc.  So the impact is not traffic capacity - at least now - it's a few metered spots in exchange for the expanding outdoor seating.  And given that there is ample parking options on the neighboring side streets and the garage behind Starbuck's it seems to be a no-brainer.  The businesses would have to weigh the ROI of course but that's another issue.

 

That lane could become part of the sidewalk without a negative effect on traffic. There could maybe still be a few spaces for five-minute parking.