^^Except for the architect...  It's not like we need flashy starchitects for everything, but I find biolosky's stuff a bit meh.

 

But seriously, if that tenant roster is at all correct, just wow.  Thanks KJP for the digging!

 

I believe Bialosky did a lot of the design work at Crocker Park...

 

 

 

Really a shame about Bialosky too because they are given a lot of great opportunities.

^^Except for the architect...  It's not like we need flashy starchitects for everything, but I find biolosky's stuff a bit meh.

 

But seriously, if that tenant roster is at all correct, just wow.  Thanks KJP for the digging!

 

I believe Bialosky did a lot of the design work at Crocker Park...

 

 

 

Really a shame about Bialosky too because they are given a lot of great opportunities.

 

You think that's a good thing?

Can someone help me visualize where this is?  I think I have an idea, but I'm not certain... Thanks!

Will Coral be the 'developer'..... or are they just being retained as the 'construction manager' or 'general contractor'?

 

KJP's link says that Coral partnered with Panzica, a very well established construction company

^^See KJP's post on page 1 of this thread which has a very good diagram.

Can someone help me visualize where this is?  I think I have an idea, but I'm not certain... Thanks!

 

KJP posted a graphic on the first page that will make it absolutely clear for you.

Sounds very exciting -- I agree with Htsguy, Coral's (potential) involvement makes me cringe... A couple comments re KJP's "scoop":

 

- I'm glad about the idea offices and the "Tech Ribbon", but 27K sq/ft isn't a ton of office space.

 

- I guess we are safe to assume that the proposed 12-story building, a high rise, will be the residential unit. 

 

- Any idea of what type of development (residential or commercial) development may spill over to the empty UH lots on the south side of Mayfield -- or is UH, itself, interested in developing this land?

 

- quote: "The Lot 45 development will include improved pedestrian access along Mayfield under the railroad bridges to the planned Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Red Line rail station and to Little Italy." -- (probably best addressed to RTA): is there any thought of extending the planned Red Line (station) head house, to be located East of the tracks, all the way under the railroad bridge, for a western entrance, as opposed to forcing pedestrians to walk under low railroad bridges (with, I think, 4 sets of freight RR tracks) on a probably claustrophobic Mayfield sidewalk?

 

-- I'm hoping such high-density development at this sight, in the Uptown district, generally, will encourage RTA to extend the Red Line to Euclid in it's current form: heavy rail rapid transit, and not BRT, diesel commuter, etc... but that's for the CLE transit future plans thread, I know.

^Yesterday, I believe somebody posted a UCI document in the University Circle thread which showed, among other things, a cool proposed rendering of a Phase 2 apartment building on the corner of Mayfield and Ford across from the MOCA.  As part of that document was a rendering of what I am assuming is still a conceptual idea for the underpass and it showed it as gleaming and well lit.  It actually looked kinda neat.  Of course who knows if this is a firm proposal and if there is $$$ for it.

^Yesterday, I believe somebody posted a UCI document in the University Circle thread which showed, among other things, a cool proposed rendering of a Phase 2 apartment building on the corner of Mayfield and Ford across from the MOCA.  As part of that document was a rendering of what I am assuming is still a conceptual idea for the underpass and it showed it as gleaming and well lit.  It actually looked kinda neat.  Of course who knows if this is a firm proposal and if there is $$$ for it.

 

 

If I remember right, this was actually an underpass in NYC that was being used as an example.

^That's definitely what it said.  But even if it's not quite that fancy, I'm pretty sure improving that pedestrian route is a significant priority in this project, as it is with the UC rapid station design.

Why not a pedestrian bridge to the station?

Why not a pedestrian bridge to the station?

 

Cost, that's why

Is this an UO poster?  Anyways...more buzz! :D

 

Cleveland's Uptown, a transformative, transit-oriented development

 

http://www.gcbl.org/blog/marc-lefkowitz/clevelands-uptown-transformative-transit-oriented-development

haha.  An article posted quoting KJP's blog which quoted some confirmed rumors.  I sure hope that press release comes out soon and clarifies things once and for all.

I'm officially impatient now.  I want some official news!

I'm officially impatient now.  I want some official news!

 

Ditto... too much smoke to keep this agonizing rumor mill going (... talk about mixing metaphors)...

After reading the just posted article on cleveland.com about Lot 45, a little less enthusiastic (with the conceptual design so far) and the fact that it is much more speculative at this point than I thought.

I'm not. It's pretty much what was I was expecting except for the parking deck on the south side of Mayfield. Perhaps UCI doesn't think many people will use transit to access a transit-oriented development! Glad to see the PD finally catch up with the news! ;)

 

University Circle could see parking lot become $100 million tech, office and apartment complex

Published: Monday, March 05, 2012, 8:45 PM    Updated: Monday, March 05, 2012, 8:56 PM

  By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Offices, apartments, a hub for tech companies and a 700-car garage could rise from a surface parking lot at the edge of University Circle and Little Italy starting early next year.

 

After years of discussions, University Circle Inc. has picked a plan and developers for one of the most pivotal pieces of real estate in the dynamic Cleveland neighborhood.

 

The Coral Co. of Cleveland and Panzica Construction Co. of Mayfield Village aim to build a $100 million-plus project on 2.2 acres off Mayfield Road, north of Circle Drive.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/university_circle_could_see_pa.html

 

BTW, the Bialosky image is not copyrighted since it came from UCI, not the PD (the other graphics are developed by the PD and thus copyrighted). So here is the non-copyrighted image.....

 

The parking garage on the other side of Mayfield is one of the big things I don't like (along with the skywalk but I don't want this thread to get bogged down in a skywalk discussion).  When KJP indicated a few days ago that the proposal also included the development of the lot across the street I was imagining more retail or housing, not a parking garage going up to the sidewalk.

 

Also thought there would be more of a retail component to the project.

 

Again, seems like much of this is very iffy....lots still has to fall into place with multiple entities, not to mention that the financing aspect is still very much up in the air.  Looks like a fair amount of work has to be done in the next year by Coral and Panzica just to get to the the starting blocks (and I don't have a lot of confidence in Coral which likes to dream big and most of the time does not follow through).  Well, nothing good is easy.

It's iffy in terms of the tenant agreements, which are only letters of intent. But nothing has changed from what I reported last week. Maybe Coral can pull this off. Maybe they can't. But the competing firms apparently had less to offer than Coral's proposal at this early stage.

I'd like to know how much subsidy this project is going to require from City of Cleveland.  With all the other projects going on like FEB and small stuff, there may not be enough public money to help out.  I predict it gets scale back.  The residential may be a strong demand, but I don't know about the office portion.  Plus the office stack faces the back of those ugly old apartment buildings.

I'd like to know how much subsidy this project is going to require from City of Cleveland.  With all the other projects going on like FEB and small stuff, there may not be enough public money to help out.  I predict it gets scale back.  The residential may be a strong demand, but I don't know about the office portion.  Plus the office stack faces the back of those ugly old apartment buildings.

 

I don't think that's going to be a problem. Much of Cleveland's development money comes from repayment of development loans given in the 80s and 90s. Plus, there are other sources to get funding from. FEB had over 20 sources of fundng. So I doubt that funding will be an issue.

Besides, TIFs are highly localized mechanisms and succeed or fail over the long-term life of a project.

 

And the office component of this is so small that any failure should have a minimal impact on the overall development. But its success could result in more development -- including its spread to the south side of Mayfield. I see a lot more upside potential in the planned office component than downside risk.

^Also, there was much speculation as to why the FTA grant to RTA for the Mayfield Rapid station was so high -- initially listed at $17.5M but later reported as around $12M... still high for a new Rapid Station.  Could not some of that money be for improving those rundown RR trestles, including those carrying the Rapid?  After all, a critical component to the overall uptown project, aside from the obvious transit access, is facilitate connection between Little Italy and U. Circle.  Right now those bridges are a serious barrier to this and must be radically altered to reach that goal.  Also, the Rapid itself, and hence the new station, is on the east /Little Italy side of the massive ROW and so commuters to "Intesa" would have to traverse under these bridges to get to the Rapid station.  And, really, looking at the space (as I did the other day), it'll be an engineering feat to build that station.  It's a small area and Mayfield dips down to go under the tracks...

 

btw, I agree that the idea of the south/UH surface lot converted into a huge parking garage stinks to high heaven... but it's only speculative at this point.  Overall, I'm lovin' this so far... We haven't had TOD on this scale in Cleveland since Termnal Tower/Union Terminal Group ... and that was 1930!

Wow, I'm really hyped up about this particular project :), can't wait for the final rendering as I'm sure some things will change from now to then.

Actually, it's the other way around. The station was originally projected to cost $9 million, then $12 million and then increased to $17.5 million. The cost may actually be about $18 million, and include funding from a Federal Transit Administration program account dedicated to bus station improvements and/or construction. That will likely be used for the extension of Circle Drive and the provision of a bus hub on it.

 

The easternmost bridge deck, which is unused, will be rehabbed as part of this project as a pedestrian walkway across Mayfield to Tony Brush Park. Next bridge deck west, for the RTA Red Line eastbound track, will be replaced by a bridge deck about 10-12 feet eastward so a station platform can be inserted between the RTA tracks.

And the office component of this is so small that any failure should have a minimal impact on the overall development.

 

Really?  Link says 100,000 sf - that's not minimal.  That's a pretty significant chunk when you consider the revenue generated per sf.  They are going to need big subsidies to pull this off - help with the infrastructure, removing 117th, extending Circle drive, not to mention coordinating the RTA connections.  The overall design of the building looks to be pretty high end - I just wonder what rents they plan on charging to meet those construction costs.

The project is okay--certainly better than nothing. However, I think the office component should be much larger (while keeping the rest). There is really very little office space in UC, despite the incredible potential. I'd love to see a bold move here--maybe an 80-story office building. And to balance it perhaps a 40-50 story residential building. The offices and apartments/condos would create its own demand for all the street-level retail.

 

Such an office tower would not cannibalize Downtown--if anything it would keep jobs in the city that would otherwise be heading to Beachwood or Mayfield Hts. And it would allow for all the tiny startups cooking in the areas--whether boosted by Case, the Clinic, or BioEnterprise--a place to grow in the neighborhood without moving out (or out of the region altogether).

 

The project is nice. But a BOLD move would be really impressive and is ultimately needed in the city.

^yeah I think 80 story building would be a bold move.  Did you smoke your breakfast today?

Really?  Link says 100,000 sf - that's not minimal.  That's a pretty significant chunk when you consider the revenue generated per sf.  They are going to need big subsidies to pull this off - help with the infrastructure, removing 117th, extending Circle drive, not to mention coordinating the RTA connections.  The overall design of the building looks to be pretty high end - I just wonder what rents they plan on charging to meet those construction costs.

 

But it looks like the only part of the design that is "assured" is the 27,000 sf tech ribbon. That's not much. I'll bet the rest of the office space can be "flexed" between residential or office space depending on the level of interest Coral receives for each use. I wonder how committed they are to build that 100,000 sf? And consider that a 120,000 sf office building was built on spec in Midtown almost two years ago. Depending on rents, I don't think it will be that difficult to fill 100,000 sf of office space in the heart of a much more intact, viable, vibrant neighborhood. In fact, I think 100,000 sf is pretty conservative.

 

The funding for the infrastructure appears to be in place, from the Mayfield Station project. See some of my cost/revenue break downs for this project in that thread....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,6956.90.html#ixzz1oLZ5J77f

 

GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY

FFY 2011 GRANT PROGRAM

ALI #      PROJECT & TASK DESCRIPTION                              BUDGET      FEDERAL      LOCAL

 

Section 5309 Bus & Bus Facilities Earmarks

12.33.02 Mayfield Station Rehabilitation Construction T-648 $2,500,000 $2,000,000  $500,000

 

GCRTA also recently received $12.5 million in federal funds for the Mayfield Station which has to be leveraged by a 20 percent local match, which brings the total from that allocation to $15.625 million. Add the $2.5 million from above for a station and you get $18.125 million. The station itself is projected to cost $12.3 million.

 

The street infrastructure was projected to cost $4.75 million (in concept-level costing). In reality, this cost is probably more like $5 million or even $6 million. RTA appears to have the funding for that....

 

 

UPTOWN DISTRICT

CLEVELAND, OHIO

A TRANSPORTATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

OCTOBER 2010

http://www.noaca.org/uptowntlci.pdf

 

In this document, it shows that the street infrastructure for this area is projected to cost $4,765,000. Now why would GCRTA build streets? For the same reason it extended East 17th Street from Euclid to Prospect as part of the Euclid Corridor project -- it was deemed as needed for better vehicular circulation and economic development surrounding a major new transit facility. The same might be said for the new streets as part of the Lot 45 TOD and Mayfield Station, especially if GCRTA buses (ie: the #9, the #48 or the CircleLink) are to be routed through an extended Circle Drive/East 115th. But since there is no apparent agreement yet between GCRTA, UCI and a Lot 45 TOD developer, it would be even more presumptuous for any of these parties to suggest that this is where the additional $5 million for the Mayfield Station project would be spent.

 

 

Here is an old vision of the Lot 45 development and Mayfield Station. As we know, Lot 45 will be bigger and the station will be smaller, as it will have a single "island" platform vs two platforms on either side of the two RTA tracks. RTA prefers the single platform because it will cost less to build, maintain and operate, and it means it doesn't have to buy land from NS which has been very difficult to deal with:

 

^yeah I think 80 story building would be a bold move.  Did you smoke your breakfast today?

 

LMAO!  :wave:

 

 

The Cleveland.bomb comments were overwhelmingly positive...except for this one from poster - july61957

 

"After being a recent grad student at Case and utilizing this specific area almost daily as a student/commuter for a number of years, I feel I have sufficient personal experience to support my view that this is a dreadful plan for this area."

 

"First, the current traffic situation along Mayfield Rd. before Euclid is absolutely HORRENDOUS. It is less than 1.5 miles from Coventry and Mayfield to Euclid and Mayfield, yet to travel this distance during "rush hour" time can take nearly a half hour - those walking this same path I traveled by car nearly beat me every time. This area cannot support an influx of what may be thousands of people (and possibly over a thousand vehicles if both garages are built), even if a significant number of people choose to commute by Rapid. And really, who uses the red line anyway? The RTA runs the most inconsistent public transport system I've ever used (no matter what award the placard on the buses say it won). Also, the area should be already expecting a surge of patronage and traffic due to the new Cleveland MOCA."

 

"Secondly, there is a significant crime (theft) problem that exists in the blocks between this proposed site and the UH buildings. The increase in persons and standing vehicles in the area may exacerbate a problem that already isn't being attended to."

 

"Lastly, just a block away was home for many years to a similar development (albeit, not "high tech"): a mixed-use residential/retail space that was mostly a large failure. The Triangle buildings proved that students (read: parents) and some medical folks will pay an exorbitant amount of money for a very small amount of space to live near school/work, but the commercial sites were mostly vacant with businesses closing their doors in the past few years. So while the residential component of this proposed plan makes sense, the only commercial development that is attractive in this area is for medically-related companies looking to be nearer to UH/Cleveland Clinic than downtown. But even then, I don't know that there would be many looking to pay what will surely be a stiff premium (not to mention the downsides of the area itself) over all the (cheap) vacant office space downtown."

 

"It was a great privilege to be able to learn in a place surrounded by such beauty and culture and I'd love for Cleveland to continue on the up and up. But this plan is a disaster waiting to happen - what Cleveland needs to do is not invest more in areas that already have, but start to boost those communities that are without."

I'd say july61957 doesn't understand what makes a great city. Great cities are built around pedestrians and transit. If you're trying to drive in a densely developed urban neighborhood designed for pedestrians, then you are a fish out of water. What is his solution for Mayfield? Demolish Little Italy's street-facing buildings to widen the street? Using traffic engineering to build better urban neighborhoods is counter intuitive. And I've never had problems with crime in this area. Indeed, more development and more people puts more "eyes on the street" which is more effective in combating crime than hiring more police.

 

BTW, the Red Line carries 17,000 people per day (http://www.riderta.com/newsroom/releases/?listingid=1692), and the relocated Red Line station to a more visible, active location will most certainly add more riders. The section of Mayfield he claims has too much traffic sees 18,010 vehicles per day (http://www.noaca.org/CuyTcount0609.pdf), which includes RTA buses and some trucks. Even if all of these were cars, that's 21,612 people per day based on the USDOT's average car occupancy of 1.2 persons. It seems july61957 is dealing more in his own stilted viewpoints than in factual reality.

^Amen! ... Just because this cleve.com poster wraps himself/herself in the "authority" of being a Case alum who lived in the area, doesn't magically qualify he/she as an urban or transportation expert. This person is just one more example of how deeply rooted the 'car first' mentality exists in this region, and how grateful I am that movers & shakers behind projects like E. 4th St, Uptown and "Intesa" (among others) are finally bringing quality, high-density, transity-frinedly urban projects to fruition despite such widespread regressive thinking expressed by people like july61957.

^ good response KJP, you should post it on Cleveland.com. I don't get where alot of his points come from because I don't see it and the stats don't back them up.

Just posted it.

^Great!  He/She apparently has never or has rarely ridden the Redline.

Well said KJP.

I don't know if july6 is COMPLETELY off the mark ... It actually seemed a relatively well-conceived counter-argument, at least compared to the typical cleveland.bomber :) While the overall volume of traffic along the corridor may not be high, Mayfield quite often has standing traffic, particularly at peak hours. With the additions of MOCA, Uptown and Intesa if built to this scale, it's reasonable to think that this problem could be exacerbated :)

 

I'm car-free, so I'm not honestly all that concerned, but I do think it's reasonable to question how traffic will impact the overall neighborhood. And I'd say july6 was spot-on with questioning how an additional 1,000 parking spaces could impact this corridor ... At what point do we say that transit-oriented development should rely much more heavily on ... transit services? :)

I do think there's too much parking in this plan (it was my first reaction, above). And I do think traffic is bad. But the traffic numbers show Mayfield's traffic is no better or worse than other major arterials. Thus, the compact settings of Little Italy, the low speed of traffic through it, and the high number of turning traffic seems to have a great impact on flow than the actual number of vehicles. Every older, compact, pedestrian oriented neighborhood I've experienced which has a major US route through it invariably has a high level of traffic congestion. But I don't see that as a negative. In fact, the built environments of this area (including UC) force urban planners to abandon traffic engineering as the dominant tool to address traffic congestion. Instead, it forces them to consider multi-modal solutions as well as providing more housing and mixed-use design to reduce the need for trips. The favorite saying for urbanists is that the most efficient vehicular trip is the one that is never made.

I don't know if july6 is COMPLETELY off the mark ... It actually seemed a relatively well-conceived counter-argument, at least compared to the typical cleveland.bomber :) While the overall volume of traffic along the corridor may not be high, Mayfield quite often has standing traffic, particularly at peak hours. With the additions of MOCA, Uptown and Intesa if built to this scale, it's reasonable to think that this problem could be exacerbated :)

 

I'm car-free, so I'm not honestly all that concerned, but I do think it's reasonable to question how traffic will impact the overall neighborhood. And I'd say july6 was spot-on with questioning how an additional 1,000 parking spaces could impact this corridor ... At what point do we say that transit-oriented development should rely much more heavily on ... transit services? :)

 

Agree.  Its not like they were being spiteful or the typical negative Cleveland poster.  They even gave some nice complements to the area. 

They were merely giving their opinion (they were not claiming to be an authority or a transportation expert as Clevlndr commented), even though some of it lacked an understanding of cause and effect, but valid points none the less.   

 

Funny the responses on here when an opinion differs from those on the board and people become automatically defensive.  That provides almost as much amusement for me as reading Cleveland.com comments. :roll:   

^^ Couldn't agree more :) Captured very effectively in the movie Urbanized: Traffic generally isn't caused by lack of capacity. It's more often caused by frequency of vehicular trips and duration of trips. And the best way to reduce people's willingness to take trips is to reduce access, not expand it.

 

But that's where there is some room for genuine concern here ... Historically, we've been a city that expands access at the slightest sign of congestion (although, granted, we're slowly but surely getting better). I would just hate to see traffic around Mayfield and Euclid translate into converting scarce space into more parking structures or serving as a rationale for more Opportunity Boulevard-esque investments on the east side. Just think we need to be vigilant in advocating for transit-oriented development that is truly transit-oriented.

 

Regardless, I think we can all agree that that gerbil tube gotsta go :)

The Cleveland.bomb comments were overwhelmingly positive...except for this one from poster - july61957

 

"After being a recent grad student at Case and utilizing this specific area almost daily as a student/commuter for a number of years, I feel I have sufficient personal experience to support my view that this is a dreadful plan for this area."

 

That response reminds me of the people I work with. They will tolerate, even enjoy walking, cycling or using public transportation in NYC or Chicago. But they won't tolerate it here in Cleveland. For them, the benefit of working downtown CLE is all about the nearest parking garage.

I to don't think the Cleveland.comer's comment was that bad. He/She was basically stating this project will add more traffic to an already traffic jammed area. Nobody wants to sit in traffic be it in a car, bus, train or plane.

About the only thing the cleveland.com poster has a point on is the traffic.  This project may add some traffic concerns but in relation to UC as a whole it won't add that much.  I think traffic could be routed better through Little Italy with perhaps a stop light at Murray Hill and Mayfield.  The comment about crime is ridiculous.  This is probably the safest place in the city of Cleveland.  I think the comment overall shows that there are two distinct views of what UC should be.  One side (the cleveland.com poster) thinks UC should be a green campus type of area with lots of open space and lower density development.  The other side (urbanohio and UCI)  think that UC should be Cleveland's second downtown.  I think this poster's comments are similar to complaints from Cleveland State students about their new development.  All they see is the slight inconvenience to them in the short term without understanding what the future benefits will be.  Students that go to both schools 5 years from now will not know anything except the new UC and will enjoy it more.

But can't traffic be a good thing?  Doesn't traffic mean there's density and a large number of people are trying to get to a highly desired location?  Isn't that better than main streets so empty you could sit and read a book in them?  Can't a two lane, historic road like Mayfield be better than a wide, six lane + turning road in the suburbs?  Because the pedestrian feel of walking through those streets and how buildings on those streets are designed will be completely different.

 

If someone has to go to Intesa because they work there, maybe they'll think of moving someplace nearby so they can walk.  Or someplace along the red line so it's an easy ride in on the rapid.  And this reinforces some of the things that are great about great cities. 

 

Plus, it's often perception.  The level at which people will complain about traffic in Northeast Ohio is much lower than in areas of California or New York City.  People who live and work there would laugh at some of the situations people in Cleveland consider "bad traffic".

 

I'm not against increased traffic in some areas of the city.

Bottom line: high destination traffic = high destination success.  And it's about doggone time developers in this region FINALLY maximize a transit-oriented site to create (enhance, really) an attractive, high-density living/shopping/touring/eating envirnment.  I mean, how many Steelyards, Legacy's, Golden Gates, or Crocker Parks are we going to build all because they are convenient (READ: easy to drive to and park)???? And as to potentially harming traffic patterns: I've been up & down Mayfield thru Li'l Italy during peak rush hour and have NEVER encountered half hour trips up the hill to Coventry.  Absent an accident, I seriously question the veracity of such a claim.  And of course I (like I'm sure, a lot of UOers) love Little Italy for its narrow, crowded/busy, mixed-use streets.  If you want sprawl and convenience, there's always Houston... (that's a joke folks)...

 

People have a right to criticize, certainly.  Uniformity and group-think is detestable imho...  I just think referring to this great potential project as a potential disaster (or whatever term that poster used) is absurd, esp when bloated hyperbole is used to bolster the point. 

That response reminds me of the people I work with. They will tolerate, even enjoy walking, cycling or using public transportation in NYC or Chicago. But they won't tolerate it here in Cleveland. For them, the benefit of working downtown CLE is all about the nearest parking garage.

 

I hear the same things all the time.  That's because people go to downtown Manhattan or Chicago on vacation.  They walk, stroll the sidewalk, windowshop, drop in places for a bite or a drink.  But they live & work in Cleveland where you have to get to work, get home, pick up the kids.  Need to get there quickly.

That response reminds me of the people I work with. They will tolerate, even enjoy walking, cycling or using public transportation in NYC or Chicago. But they won't tolerate it here in Cleveland. For them, the benefit of working downtown CLE is all about the nearest parking garage.

 

 

 

I hear the same things all the time.  That's because people go to downtown Manhattan or Chicago on vacation.  They walk, stroll the sidewalk, windowshop, drop in places for a bite or a drink.  But they live & work in Cleveland where you have to get to work, get home, pick up the kids.  Need to get there quickly.

 

I should have been clearer. These are people who lived in Chicago and New York.

All very valid. But there's traffic anxiety that's from an anti-urban perspective (i.e. I don't want my trip to take an extra 5 minutes. This is a disaster!) and anxiety from a semi-urban perspective (i.e. I hope all that traffic doesn't scare people away from the neighborhood businesses ... I could never get there and gone on my lunch break) and anxiety from an urban perspective (i.e. I hope that extra traffic doesn't lead the city to make missteps like they have with creating high-speed, low-pedestrian thoroughfares like Chester and Carnegie). Given a decades-long track record of favoring the automobile, I think this last concern is completely valid, particularly as some of these arguably questionable auto-oriented decisions aren't exactly ancient history (permitting the removal of a historic block for a casino valet station without ground-level presence comes to mind). Traffic can be a good thing. Pedestrian focus and mass transit focus clearly are a good thing. But only if our elected officials, appointed officials, traffic engineers, developers, etc. understand that more parking and wider streets are not necessarily a good thing. Guess I'm just interested to see how the powers-that-be will react to such a high volume of proposed parking with very little street-level presence and partially connected by an overhead walkway.