1 minute ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Sheesh. That’s a buzzkill. Sad

 

You get used it after a few decades.

8 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Sheesh. That’s a buzzkill. Sad

 

Then don't look into California's High-Speed Rail.

44 minutes ago, bjk said:

 

Then don't look into California's High-Speed Rail.

 

That has nothing on New York's Second Avenue Subway. Planning started in the early 1960s, the first phase of construction started in 1972 and it finished in 2017. And that's just phase one.

 

We should get back on topic....

This was always a bit questionable but I think its back to the drawing board for what to do with Tower City... hopefully Bedrock has a better plan and the concept of bringing Amtrak and CVSR back gains traction. 

 

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2021/05/14/without-bernie-moreno-blockland-cleveland-is-on-life-support

Let's hope so.  It is such a great space.  I didn't want to see it converted to a big cube farm inaccessible to the public.   A limited amount of retail in there would be nice.    

On 5/14/2021 at 11:12 AM, mrclifton88 said:

hopefully Bedrock has a better plan and the concept of bringing Amtrak and CVSR back gains traction. 

I keep bringing this back around, but Bedrock should make an outlet mall happen.    These are synonymous with casinos around the country, and could also provide much needed downtown shopping options for residents.  The addition of Amtrak and train travelers would only enhance the foot traffic.   

8 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I keep bringing this back around, but Bedrock should make an outlet mall happen.    These are synonymous with casinos around the country, and could also provide much needed downtown shopping options for residents.  The addition of Amtrak and train travelers would only enhance the foot traffic.   

We’ve talked about this here before but Tower City’s parking is not conducive to an outlet mall. Most outlet retailers wouldn’t even consider TC for that reason alone

1 hour ago, inlovewithCLE said:

We’ve talked about this here before but Tower City’s parking is not conducive to an outlet mall. Most outlet retailers wouldn’t even consider TC for that reason alone

That was before there was a casino garage.   Add in Phase 2 with more parking ramps and suddenly you have a couple thousand spaces, attached and covered.  

We’ve talked about this here before but Tower City’s parking is not conducive to an outlet mall. Most outlet retailers wouldn’t even consider TC for that reason alone

You could have retailers offer parking validation to supplement parking cost for shoppers. It's not like there are no ways around that issue. Tower City definitely is perfect for outlet shopping for the reasons the previous poster mentioned.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

3 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

You could have retailers offer parking validation to supplement parking cost for shoppers. It's not like there are no ways around that issue. Tower City definitely is perfect for outlet shopping for the reasons the previous poster mentioned.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

There’s not enough parking for a large outlet mall as currently constructed. You also have casino workers parking in some of the Tower City lots. The newer garages largely have casino customers in them. Outlet Retailers are not going to want to deal with additional complications when it comes to parking. And the average outlet consumer is going to want to park for free and as easily as possible and we all know it. As currently constructed, Tower City is just not feasible for a real outlet mall. A couple of stores here and there? Maybe, if you can get them. But not a full outlet mall

Edited May 17, 20214 yr by inlovewithCLE

I would argue that relocating Amtrak to Tower City creates more of a realistic potential for retail. I believe Tower City could have retail similar to what you see in an airport, if your transportation center is relocated there. But not an outlet mall. I still believe a real outlet mall should be where it’s already been proposed. And retail in Tower City makes sense with the location of a transportation center there. You could have both cause in many ways they are different markets. 

1 hour ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I would argue that relocating Amtrak to Tower City creates more of a realistic potential for retail. I believe Tower City could have retail similar to what you see in an airport, if your transportation center is relocated there. But not an outlet mall. I still believe a real outlet mall should be where it’s already been proposed. And retail in Tower City makes sense with the location of a transportation center there. You could have both cause in many ways they are different markets. 

 

Honestly blockland not happening could be the best thing that happened to this place thinking forward to the Amtrak potential. 

 

I'm totally in the dark with retail/office space financials, but in the long run would Bedrock make more money with a blockland type office/any office space or by reinventing the retail in there? They're out to make money afterall, and well, not renewing leases and having spots close can't be great for that (unless rents are way below market currently?). I'm spitballing and again, not my strong suit, but 🤷‍♂️

2 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Honestly blockland not happening could be the best thing that happened to this place thinking forward to the Amtrak potential. 

 

I'm totally in the dark with retail/office space financials, but in the long run would Bedrock make more money with a blockland type office/any office space or by reinventing the retail in there? They're out to make money afterall, and well, not renewing leases and having spots close can't be great for that (unless rents are way below market currently?). I'm spitballing and again, not my strong suit, but 🤷‍♂️

I don’t think Tower City can really reinvent the retail without the Amtrak proposal. That’s how important I think it is. We’ve already discussed why I don’t believe a real outlet mall can work there, but airport-style retail CAN work if there’s a transportation hub there. In that sense, the success of retail in Tower City wouldn’t necessarily be reliant on the ability of shoppers to park easily and free. A true transportation hub there has the potential to create so much foot traffic in that building that it could support retail, but the retail that’s similar to what you see in airports today. Like the airmall concept. I would like to see a version of that here and it could work if you have a transportation hub there 

1 minute ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I don’t think Tower City can really reinvent the retail without the Amtrak proposal. That’s how important I think it is. We’ve already discussed why I don’t believe a real outlet mall can work there, but airport-style retail CAN work if there’s a transportation hub there. In that sense, the success of retail in Tower City wouldn’t necessarily be reliant on the ability of shoppers to park easily and free. A true transportation hub there has the potential to create so much foot traffic in that building that it could support retail, but the retail that’s similar to what you see in airports today. Like the airmall concept. I would like to see a version of that here and it could work if you have a transportation hub there 

 

And in that vein, it'd have to be a mix of office/retail anyways. I know it's a long ways out if it came to light, but I can't imagine Bedrock likes sitting on empty space.

1 minute ago, GISguy said:

 

And in that vein, it'd have to be a mix of office/retail anyways. I know it's a long ways out if it came to light, but I can't imagine Bedrock likes sitting on empty space.

Right. It may not be a bad idea to have a mix of office and retail there anyway. The key should be to keep a steady flow of people in that building. That in and of itself can create demand that retail can then fill

The biggest issue is that you don’t want Tower City with retail that has a client base that is dependent upon free and easily accessible parking. That’s why I don’t believe an outlet mall will work there. I support having an outlet mall in the city. It’s a genius way of bringing retail to the urban core and probably the only way you’d ever get suburban shoppers to drive PAST their shopping centers to shop in the city. I love it because it does bring those suburban shoppers in. But the same reason I love the concept is the same reason I don’t think it’ll work in Tower City. We’re not talking about urban dwellers. We’re not talking about folks that are urbanists here lol. I think it’s important to have something that brings those shoppers in (and a by product is that us Cleveland residents get something cool too), but that’s not the right fit for Tower City. Tower City has to have retail that’s catered more towards the downtown resident or people going to and from the trains, etc. People who wouldn’t really care that much about parking accessibility. Let the outlet mall be somewhere where it can actually have a shot to succeed. Let Tower City cater to a different clientele 

If properly tied in with and marketed as a part of the Casino experience, parking could be free.   Especially if a huge parking structure was a component of a second phase river view site.   I have been to outlets at casinos around the country, and most include a parking structure attached to accommodate both shoppers and gamblers.  Note the huge structure in the fore of this pic of Foxwoods in Connecticut.  

 

In the case of Cleveland, such a destination would benefit from gamblers, office workers, downtown residents and Amtrak travelers.    Bedrock should certainly give the idea a look.  

 

 

6 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

The biggest issue is that you don’t want Tower City with retail that has a client base that is dependent upon free and easily accessible parking. That’s why I don’t believe an outlet mall will work there. I support having an outlet mall in the city. It’s a genius way of bringing retail to the urban core and probably the only way you’d ever get suburban shoppers to drive PAST their shopping centers to shop in the city. I love it because it does bring those suburban shoppers in. But the same reason I love the concept is the same reason I don’t think it’ll work in Tower City. We’re not talking about urban dwellers. We’re not talking about folks that are urbanists here lol. I think it’s important to have something that brings those shoppers in (and a by product is that us Cleveland residents get something cool too), but that’s not the right fit for Tower City. Tower City has to have retail that’s catered more towards the downtown resident or people going to and from the trains, etc. People who wouldn’t really care that much about parking accessibility. Let the outlet mall be somewhere where it can actually have a shot to succeed. Let Tower City cater to a different clientele 

 

Long-term sustainability for the region means moving a lot more people around downtown without their cars.  This discussion just shows how far we have to go in that regard, in that most of NEO depends on the car and free parking. 

5 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Long-term sustainability for the region means moving a lot more people around downtown without their cars.  This discussion just shows how far we have to go in that regard, in that most of NEO depends on the car and free parking. 

Just the reality of the situation. People who are trying to make money are going to want to cater to who shoppers actually are, not who other folks want them to be. Because NEO has sooooooo much sprawl, there’s always only going to be so far people are willing to go when it comes to moving without their cars. And I believe in looking at the reality of the situation. That’s why I believe in order for retail at Tower City to work, it has to be based on a different clientele than an outlet mall. Again, an outlet mall is a brilliant idea to bring suburban shoppers in the city, and it’s probably the only way the city would ever get suburban shoppers to choose to drive past their shopping centers to shop in the city, but in order for that to work, we have to be realistic about what that clientele expects and what the experience needs to be

Edited May 18, 20214 yr by inlovewithCLE

4 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Just the reality of the situation. People who are trying to make money are going to want to cater to who shoppers actually are, not who other folks want them to be. Because NEO has sooooooo much sprawl, there’s always only going to be so far people are willing to go when it comes to moving without their cars. And I believe in looking at the reality of the situation. That’s why I believe in order for retail at Tower City to work, it has to be based on a different clientele than an outlet mall. Again, an outlet mall is a brilliant idea to bring suburban shoppers in the city, and it’s probably the only way the city would ever get suburban shoppers to choose to drive past their shopping centers to shop in the city, but in order for that to work, we have to be realistic about what that clientele expects and what the experience needs to be

Yes, that is the reality, no doubt.  And I agree that Tower City needs a new approach and new clientele. 

 

But we (urbanists, Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, NOACA) shouldn't just say "oh, that's the way things are today" and spend more money to support current thinking.  We cannot afford to maintain all the roadway infrastructure we have, so we need to downsize not increase or encourage more use (wear) on it.  To get NEO into a more fiscally-sustainable position, we need to stop encouraging car-dependence.  If Bedrock wants to build a big parking garage and provide free parking, they can certainly do that and it would probably help Tower City (and Gateway).  Yet the city and county should not provide any incentives to bring more traffic into downtown.  Public money should go to improving our bus and rail network so people can park at the airport or a park-and-ride station to come into downtown and get around downtown rather than continuing the same-old spending on cars.

3 hours ago, Foraker said:

Yes, that is the reality, no doubt.  And I agree that Tower City needs a new approach and new clientele. 

 

But we (urbanists, Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, NOACA) shouldn't just say "oh, that's the way things are today" and spend more money to support current thinking.  We cannot afford to maintain all the roadway infrastructure we have, so we need to downsize not increase or encourage more use (wear) on it.  To get NEO into a more fiscally-sustainable position, we need to stop encouraging car-dependence.  If Bedrock wants to build a big parking garage and provide free parking, they can certainly do that and it would probably help Tower City (and Gateway).  Yet the city and county should not provide any incentives to bring more traffic into downtown.  Public money should go to improving our bus and rail network so people can park at the airport or a park-and-ride station to come into downtown and get around downtown rather than continuing the same-old spending on cars.

I just fundamentally disagree with what I read as an all or nothing approach. We should absolutely improve our bus and rail network. But we can’t pretend that the region is ever going to be as a whole willing to just ditch their cars. That’s not reality. That horse is already  out of the barn. You can only push people as far as they are willing to go, not as far as you would like them to go, and if you push too hard that hurts the city too. I’m an urbanist like most people around here. But I’m a practical urbanist. And I’m also one who comes from a community that by and large will never use the bus in large numbers by choice. I’m a born and raised Clevelander, from the inner city (aka the “hood”) and people where I’m from don’t associate the bus with urbanism and smart development, they associate it with poverty. And there’s a portion of our population who will always feel that way. So I do not support an either/or proposition. I support a both/and. Back to Tower City, let that be for the urban dwellers and let the outlet mall be for everybody else. I want people living in the city, I want people shopping in the city, I want people spending money, increasing that tax base so that the city has more money to improve hoods like the one that I’m from. And I believe that takes a both/and approach, not an either/or. We have enough neighborhoods in the city that we have the ability to offer diverse styles, diverse development patterns, etc. All 34 neighborhoods don’t have to look the same. Both/and, not either/or. People may disagree with that but that’s what I believe 

Edited May 18, 20214 yr by inlovewithCLE

2 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I just fundamentally disagree with what I read as an all or nothing approach. We should absolutely improve our bus and rail network. But we can’t pretend that the region is ever going to be as a whole willing to just ditch their cars. That’s not reality. That horse is already  out of the barn. You can only push people as far as they are willing to go, not as far as you would like them to go, and if you push too hard that hurts the city too. I’m an urbanist like most people around here. But I’m a practical urbanist. And I’m also one who comes from a community that by and large will never use the bus in large numbers by choice. I’m a born and raised Clevelander, from the inner city (aka the “hood”) and people where I’m from don’t associate the bus with urbanism and smart development, they associate it with poverty. And there’s a portion of our population who will always feel that way. So I do not support an either/or proposition. I support a both/and. Back to Tower City, let that be for the urban dwellers and let the outlet mall be for everybody else. I want people living in the city, I want people shopping in the city, I want people spending money, increasing that tax base so that the city has more money to improve hoods like the one that I’m from. And I believe that takes a both/and approach, not an either/or. We have enough neighborhoods in the city that we have the ability to offer diverse styles, diverse development patterns, etc. All 34 neighborhoods don’t have to look the same. Both/and, not either/or. People may disagree with that but that’s what I believe 

 

Sure, certain neighborhoods within the city (fringe neighborhoods, more car centric spots, etc.) should acquiesce to parking desires, but you can still park in the city center for <$10 a day and that's a real problem, the price doesn't reflect the true costs and the city is suffering as a result. Go to Pittsburgh, their downtown is activated, they've taken over TONS of miles downtown for bike lanes and it's flourishing (and it's hella car centric of a city). If folks want their autocentric suburbs, let them hang out there, but don't bring down the city center with those car centric desires - they chose to live in that situation, downtown dwellers chose to live in theirs. I don't expect to park for cheap/free in most cities and we're spoiled. We need to eliminate car lanes, parking, etc., and you'll see more people out and about. 

 

To Tower City, whatever, if they want to build a garage go for it, but I want ZERO tax dollars going towards it, it's time for our tax dollars to go to bike/ped/transit infra. Again, if these folks want Parma/Solon then they can hang out there. Folks would take our transit more if things felt nice, clean, and new. Instead we're expanding interchanges further and further from the city center - our population isn't going up (or really, down) and yet, we keep building up our infrastructure (271?!) so that we can send tax dollars outside of the county. 

 

I agree with what you want, I just think we need to round a corner in our collective thinking. 

 

To parking at TC, prior to the pandemic I'd grab lunch in the food court and rarely is their existing parking full or even close to it.

Edited May 18, 20214 yr by GISguy

4 minutes ago, GISguy said:

If folks want their autocentric suburbs, let them hang out there, but don't bring down the city center with those car centric desires

I’m sorry but this is what I’m talking about. That’s insane to me. We’d rather people keep their tax dollars in the suburbs if they don’t acquiesce to what we want?? That’s pure insanity to me. I’ll never agree with that. 

5 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I’m sorry but this is what I’m talking about. That’s insane to me. We’d rather people keep their tax dollars in the suburbs if they don’t acquiesce to what we want?? That’s pure insanity to me. I’ll never agree with that. 

You've glossed over my entire point - we're sending tax dollars out of the city and county on the regular by spending exorbitant amounts of tax dollars on expanding freeways so that people can move further and further away while maintaining their same 30 minute-ish commute. Tremont is doing just fine and it's hellish to park there on the weekends, same goes for OC or other hot Cleveland neighborhoods. There's no reason why we can't narrow down nearly every one of our downtown streets so that bike/ped/transit move flawlessly through downtown. It's super easy to drive around downtown now with a car and frankly it shouldn't be. Adding things that make a city more lively (dedicated bike lanes, outdoor seating in underused ROWs, dedicated bus lanes, etc.) has a much higher ROI than building more parking, more vehicle lanes, etc.. 

 

Please reread my entire post before cherrypicking one statement.

 

And since this is Tower City thread, again, parking is barely close to full in non-pandemic times, the last thing downtown needs is more parking.

 

22 minutes ago, GISguy said:

To Tower City, whatever, if they want to build a garage go for it, but I want ZERO tax dollars going towards it, it's time for our tax dollars to go to bike/ped/transit infra.

Does this include Federal dollars for Amtrak station parking?  

And while I'm thinking of it, would we ever have a chance to load cars on an Amtrak train, like they do in some markets?  

Just now, Cleburger said:

Does this include Federal dollars for Amtrak station parking?  

And while I'm thinking of it, would we ever have a chance to load cars on an Amtrak train, like they do in some markets?  

 

...that would fall under transit infrastructure IMO, but also if the Brook Park station is built then that's where folks that need to park could park too. Parking garages are so expensive that it'd sure be nice to focus our dollars on other more important things.

2 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

people where I’m from don’t associate the bus with urbanism and smart development, they associate it with poverty. And there’s a portion of our population who will always feel that way.

 

The bus will always be associated with poverty until we prioritize buses over cars. Most people will take the bus if that's the fastest way to get where they're going. Some people will be stuck in their thinking of busses are for poor people but most people can have their opinion change pretty quickly once busses get good.

 

 Do Your Buses Get Stuck in Traffic? Traffic solutions & the Downs-Thomson Paradox

 

 

2 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I want people living in the city, I want people shopping in the city, I want people spending money, increasing that tax base so that the city has more money to improve hoods like the one that I’m from.

 

To increase the tax base the streets in downtown need to be be streets, not stroads. The costs of getting more people to drive downtown outweigh the increase in taxes. The increased VMT, the health impact of the PM 2.5 that cars make, the waste of land for parking that could be used for other more valuable (and taxable) uses. We ought to make Cleveland a good place to live, instead of trying to make it a place for suburbanites to visit. If we replace a 50 spot parking lot with a 20 unit apartment building, the taxable value that apartment adds is orders of magnitude more than the parking lot. Instead of having more people come downtown once a week to spend some money, we have fewer people but between, the tax on the building itself, the people living there do all their shopping in Cleveland, and the reduction in VMT. The increase in tax base is significant. 

 

You say you're a practical urbanist, but look at the transformation of Amsterdam in the past 50 years. It is entirely possible for Cleveland to have a similar transformation. The reason the Dutch bike so much is because there is the infrastructure for it and there is no reason why Cleveland can't have a similarly high bike mode share. However, we won't reach that point as long as we try to cater to people driving into Cleveland instead of the people who live in Cleveland. Think of the amount of money wasted on cars and car insurance in Cleveland. If more people could go car free, all that money spent on cars would be spent at businesses in Cleveland as opposed to going to oil and insurance companies, increasing the wealth of neighborhoods over time.

I haven't visited this thread in a day or two and it sure went into an interesting direction in that short time.

21 minutes ago, Henryefry said:

 

The bus will always be associated with poverty until we prioritize buses over cars. Most people will take the bus if that's the fastest way to get where they're going. Some people will be stuck in their thinking of busses are for poor people but most people can have their opinion change pretty quickly once busses get good.

 

 Do Your Buses Get Stuck in Traffic? Traffic solutions & the Downs-Thomson Paradox

 

 

 

To increase the tax base the streets in downtown need to be be streets, not stroads. The costs of getting more people to drive downtown outweigh the increase in taxes. The increased VMT, the health impact of the PM 2.5 that cars make, the waste of land for parking that could be used for other more valuable (and taxable) uses. We ought to make Cleveland a good place to live, instead of trying to make it a place for suburbanites to visit. If we replace a 50 spot parking lot with a 20 unit apartment building, the taxable value that apartment adds is orders of magnitude more than the parking lot. Instead of having more people come downtown once a week to spend some money, we have fewer people but between, the tax on the building itself, the people living there do all their shopping in Cleveland, and the reduction in VMT. The increase in tax base is significant. 

 

You say you're a practical urbanist, but look at the transformation of Amsterdam in the past 50 years. It is entirely possible for Cleveland to have a similar transformation. The reason the Dutch bike so much is because there is the infrastructure for it and there is no reason why Cleveland can't have a similarly high bike mode share. However, we won't reach that point as long as we try to cater to people driving into Cleveland instead of the people who live in Cleveland. Think of the amount of money wasted on cars and car insurance in Cleveland. If more people could go car free, all that money spent on cars would be spent at businesses in Cleveland as opposed to going to oil and insurance companies, increasing the wealth of neighborhoods over time.

I’m black. And I have yet to meet a single person that looks like me that would Make a permanent decision to choose to ride the bus over driving a car, especially those who grew up in poverty like I did. I don’t know what world some of the people around here live in. That’s just absolutely silly. Ask the average poor Clevelander if they had their choice of owning a reliable car or riding the bus and 90 percent of them would say owning a reliable car. I’ve been on the bus before in poverty. It’s a miserable experience. And most people at the socioeconomic end of the spectrum that I grew up in who have to ride the bus spend most of their time complaining about having to ride the bus. 
 

Amsterdam? I’m not talking about Amsterdam. I’m talking about Cleveland, Ohio, a Midwestern city in a very Midwestern state. That’s being practical.
 

I PREFER to have places that people will actually spend money in. It provides jobs for people, including the people who come from where I come from. And in order to do that, you gotta be realistic about what people actually want in Cleveland, Ohio. Nobody is saying “man if I didn’t have this car I’d spend more money in Cleveland businesses”. What?? Well, maybe somebody is saying that but not the people that come from where I come from. Like most around here (I hope) I want what’s best for Cleveland. But I also understand that there has been so much sprawl in the region that there are going to be a significant segment of people who are never going to be the urbanists dream. And instead of saying “f them all” like some of you are saying, I believe that in a city with 34 freaking neighborhoods in it there’s enough room to provide something for everybody. I would rather have them spend their money here, providing tax revenue and jobs for people IN THE CITY than outside in the suburbs. I also know that if you grew up in neighborhoods like I did, with the surroundings that I had, some of the stuff that you’re talking about doesn’t sound like progress to them. 

57 minutes ago, GISguy said:

You've glossed over my entire point - we're sending tax dollars out of the city and county on the regular by spending exorbitant amounts of tax dollars on expanding freeways so that people can move further and further away while maintaining their same 30 minute-ish commute. Tremont is doing just fine and it's hellish to park there on the weekends, same goes for OC or other hot Cleveland neighborhoods. There's no reason why we can't narrow down nearly every one of our downtown streets so that bike/ped/transit move flawlessly through downtown. It's super easy to drive around downtown now with a car and frankly it shouldn't be. Adding things that make a city more lively (dedicated bike lanes, outdoor seating in underused ROWs, dedicated bus lanes, etc.) has a much higher ROI than building more parking, more vehicle lanes, etc.. 

 

Please reread my entire post before cherrypicking one statement.

 

And since this is Tower City thread, again, parking is barely close to full in non-pandemic times, the last thing downtown needs is more parking.

 

Talking about cherry picking, I’ve said repeatedly that you can make retail work in Tower City without parking if you cater to a different clientele. This whole thing started because someone said it should be an outlet mall and I said there’s not enough parking to make it work AS AN OUTLET MALL. But if you have mixed use, and a transportation center with Amtrak there, you could have retail similar to what you have in airports and it would work because the clientele wouldn’t be car dependent. I’ve said that on this very thread at least twice

12 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I’m black. And I have yet to meet a single person that looks like me that would Make a permanent decision to choose to ride the bus over driving a car, especially those who grew up in poverty like I did. I don’t know what world some of the people around here live in. That’s just absolutely silly. Ask the average poor Clevelander if they had their choice of owning a reliable car or riding the bus and 90 percent of them would say owning a reliable car. I’ve been on the bus before in poverty. It’s a miserable experience. And most people at the socioeconomic end of the spectrum that I grew up in who have to ride the bus spend most of their time complaining about having to ride the bus.

 

We probably need a thread that deals with how to promote public transit.  Your point of view was perfectly demonstrated when RTA use declined along with unemployment in 2018-19.

8 minutes ago, Dougal said:

 

We probably need a thread that deals with how to promote public transit.  Your point of view was perfectly demonstrated when RTA use declined along with unemployment in 2018-19.

I personally believe Rail is the better opportunity. There’s a cool factor to it still. It feels very New York to a lot of people. But you’re right that’s best for another thread 

43 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

I personally believe Rail is the better opportunity. There’s a cool factor to it still. It feels very New York to a lot of people. But you’re right that’s best for another thread 

 

Here's one other thread......

 

And another

 

Bedrock promotes 'pop-up experiences' at ailing Tower City mall

Michelle Jarboe - Crain's Cleveland Business - June 1, 2021 

 

 

"A flyer distributed to retail brokers this month promotes leasing opportunities tied to the upcoming Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductions, in October, and the NBA All-Star Game, set for February. Both events will take place at Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse, which is linked to the mall by an indoor walkway. The pitch, long on promotional language but short on details, is raising questions about Bedrock's broader strategy for the mall. ... Bedrock would not answer questions about Till's departure, the pop-up retail promotion or its overarching vision for the mall and riverfront land behind it. ... (Doug) Price said he's heard rumblings about a big, upcoming announcement about the future of the mall and 16 acres that Bedrock controls along the Cuyahoga River. But he's skeptical."

Could have been a good idea to get people into Tower City a few years ago, but now just seems like they're in a panic trying to see what will work. Without permanent tenants there will be nothing for people to return to Tower City for, and holding it during those events will mean its mostly tourists anyway. 

 

Sounds like the City Block plan is pretty rudderless now too with the departures of Till and Moreno. 

There are leaks, and then there's this:

 

‘Significant water leak’ causes closure of downtown Cleveland’s Tower City (video)

Maybe they are converting it to an indoor water park?

Good thing my office is at the other end of The Avenue.

Apparently it started on the 12 floor of the tower.

Scene chimes in as only Scene can......

 

Tower City Could Become Nation's Largest and Most Advanced Technology and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Hub Slash Water Park

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2021/06/07/tower-city-could-become-nations-largest-and-most-advanced-technology-and-entrepreneurial-ecosystem-hub-slash-water-park

Walked through at lunch today. TC is in for a lot of work. They had blowers in all of the old storefronts too. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the water was running down and pouring off of those magnificent old chandeliers that date from the start of Union terminal in 1930.

Belfor is the right contractor for this though. they made the right call there. We just used them to rebuild all of our freeze damaged units in Texas. Literally hundreds of units running simultaneously, and they did a great job

 

 

Hmmm. Looks like a good opportunity for some insurance money to go towards some much needed upgrades.

1 hour ago, PoshSteve said:

Hmmm. Looks like a good opportunity for some insurance money to go towards some much needed upgrades.

What’s even left on Tower City. I used to shop there a lot yet one by one, the stores I used to shop at disappeared. I haven’t been in TC for almost two years and I’m less than a mile away

12 minutes ago, stpats44113 said:

What’s even left on Tower City. I used to shop there a lot yet one by one, the stores I used to shop at disappeared. I haven’t been in TC for almost two years and I’m less than a mile away

First off, i hope this email finds everyone safe and healthy.  This is my first post since the Pandemic hit......as for retail and TC, with downtown population growing and the daytime workforce recovering, shouldnt there be a need for drugstore/pharmacy at least?  Maybe a convenience store?  

Downtown has 2 pharmacies/drugstores.  And depending upon what you consider a convenience store, it has a few of those, as well.

Welcome back, @B767PILOT. We missed you.

4 hours ago, X said:

Downtown has 2 pharmacies/drugstores.  And depending upon what you consider a convenience store, it has a few of those, as well.

Good to hear.  I havent been back to cleveland in a while

Hi, new poster here. Glad I found this site since I’m always looking for Cleveland development news now that we moved away. 
 

I’m very excited to see what the proposed Amtrak station would do for Tower City. In my opinion, it’s the most underrated building in Cleveland and has so much untapped potential. My question: how would this station fit in with the “Vision for the Valley” proposal along Huron Rd? I liked the idea of green space and trails along the river.