For those of you interested in following Solon's Harper Rd./422 Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) saga:

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2024/02/solon-council-approves-contract-with-odot-for-us-422-interchange-project.html

 

The project was approved by Solon City Council. Construction is supposed to start later this year.

DDIs are really cool interchanges that are becoming more popular. There are currently only two operating in Ohio (one in Columbus and one in Toledo), with a third being built in Athens. The one in Solon would become the fourth in the state. Just something cool I thought I'd share!

 

I-475/OH-25 in Toledo

 

I-270/Roberts Rd in Columbus

 

Here is a picture of the last known proposal drawing for the Solon DDI:

I always get a headache when I look at a diagram of one of those.  What is it supposed to accomplish?

They eliminate left turns across traffic. Reducing t-bone accidents and allows traffic to flow freely onto the highways. Similar to roundabouts once you get used to the flow they are really nice in the correct locations. 

On 2/2/2024 at 10:21 AM, dastler said:

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2024/01/tired-of-house-on-top-of-house-developments-olmsted-falls-city-council-examining-housing-density.html?outputType=amp

 

Lol , you've gotta be kidding me. Olmsted Falls city council is concerned the city is becoming overdeveloped and too dense. They're proposing reducing the maximum units per acre from 7 down to 5 🙄

 

Following up on this, I personally don't think that we should be mandating reduced density anywhere. If market forces want to build higher density then let them.

 

The other side of the coin is that public investment in infrastructure to support low density uses is ridiculously lop-sided. Strong towns has a bunch of articles about it, this is a very old one that highlights the problem: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/3/29/the-density-question

 

I'm very nervous about the cost of maintaining this nation's infrastructure in my lifetime. I really think we need to get back towards higher densities pretty much everywhere, and then have those in low density locations get back providing their own off-grid utilities.

12 minutes ago, dastler said:

Following up on this, I personally don't think that we should be mandating reduced density anywhere. If market forces want to build higher density then let them.

 

The other side of the coin is that public investment in infrastructure to support low density uses is ridiculously lop-sided. Strong towns has a bunch of articles about it, this is a very old one that highlights the problem: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/3/29/the-density-question

 

I'm very nervous about the cost of maintaining this nation's infrastructure in my lifetime. I really think we need to get back towards higher densities pretty much everywhere, and then have those in low density locations get back providing their own off-grid utilities.

 

These are local elected officials, likely reflecting the concerns of residents.    At that level, if they want to stay in office they need to do that.

 

I've seen candidates in the sprawlburbs pronounce "density" the same way some here pronounce "sprawl".

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2024/02/southpark-mall-redevelopment-may-include-new-hotel-grocery-store-fitness-center.html

 

https://www.cuparc.com/southpark-mall-redevelopment (couple renders)

 

Bleh, they should just model it more like Easton and build a parking garage connected to the mall.

Interesting, that mall seems to be doing well and somehow has both a Macys and also Penny's in this day and age.

 

Quite the clean Dillard's too.

 

Smart move to repurpose it before it declines. Get ahead of the inevitable troubles that afflict so many malls.

On 2/7/2024 at 3:07 PM, dastler said:

I'm very nervous about the cost of maintaining this nation's infrastructure in my lifetime. I really think we need to get back towards higher densities pretty much everywhere, and then have those in low density locations get back providing their own off-grid utilities.

 

On 2/7/2024 at 3:21 PM, E Rocc said:

 

These are local elected officials, likely reflecting the concerns of residents.    At that level, if they want to stay in office they need to do that.

 

I've seen candidates in the sprawlburbs pronounce "density" the same way some here pronounce "sprawl".

As the StrongTowns article cited above notes, "sprawlburbs" are fiscal mistakes.  Sure, go low density -- that works for about 50 years, until you have to replace the infrastructure which you have too much of for the low population to sustain.  Then what?  (Oh, right, just move to another suburb further out....)

Don't annex SFH on over a half acre lot unless it's worth over $500k or you lose money.

42 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

As the StrongTowns article cited above notes, "sprawlburbs" are fiscal mistakes.  Sure, go low density -- that works for about 50 years, until you have to replace the infrastructure which you have too much of for the low population to sustain.  Then what?  (Oh, right, just move to another suburb further out....)

 

That's what will happen if it's the only way.   The majority of non-coastal Americans don't wish to live in close quarters and will take the steps necessary to not have to do so.  Those who desire density are already there.

 

Decentralized employment makes that easier and therefore more likely.

Seems like a giant miss to not include any housing in the plan. That seems like a no-brainer to re-invent old-school shopping centers into the Crocker Park/Van Aken model. 

Same with Legacy. All those "luxury" residentials by Mayfield/Lander are filled up. Developers can't build them fast enough. 

 

They couldn't do it at Legacy?

 

Just had a nostalgia moment of when my mom and I would walk/sneak into the then unfinished development behind the then Acacia golf course. 15-20 years ago the developers were asking for $700k per home, and for years there were only a couple, including the model.

 

Last I checked, they finally filled 'em up. Better a lovely park in the front yard than a golf course too. I'll have to see what the prices ended up dropping(?) to.

Edited February 22, 20241 yr by TBideon

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

 

As the StrongTowns article cited above notes, "sprawlburbs" are fiscal mistakes.  Sure, go low density -- that works for about 50 years, until you have to replace the infrastructure which you have too much of for the low population to sustain.  Then what?  (Oh, right, just move to another suburb further out....)

I understand the theory. Given that theory, one should expect rural and suburban areas to have higher tax rates than urban areas, at least once they reach maturity. However, we not only don't see this in reality, we see the opposite. Rural areas have lower tax rates across the board than suburban areas which have lower tax rates than urban areas. 

 

 

 

(Pre Cleveland increasing to 2.5%)

 

I can't find a good map for municipal income tax rates, the above is the best I could find, but from what I can tell the trend is less clear, but it still tilts in the same direction as the other taxes. 

 

If the argument is that the suburbs haven't reached infrastructural maturity yet, then when will they? Mentor, which is definitely a sprawlburb if anywhere is, grew ~750% between 1960 and 1970 and then grew modestly before starting to decline in population more recently. We can argue about exactly when we start the clock, but it clearly is beyond or closely approaching the 50 year mark and has lower, sales, income, and property tax rates than Cleveland or most of the inner ring suburbs. And I wouldn't say its infrastructure is in worse shape on average. Obviously that's just one example, but I don't think it's an exception. 

 

Even if these burbs hit a massive infrastructure repair bill in the next few years, it seems to me that they have plenty of room to raise taxes and still be competitive with the more urban areas on tax burden. 

 

I'm not trying to argue for sprawl here, this argument makes sense in theory, but doesn't seem to bear out in practice. Basically, if you're trying to convince anyone that sprawl is bad, I wouldn't use this argument... There are better arguments and I'd stick with those. Don't shoot the messenger. 

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

I understand the theory. Given that theory, one should expect rural and suburban areas to have higher tax rates than urban areas, at least once they reach maturity. However, we not only don't see this in reality, we see the opposite. Rural areas have lower tax rates across the board than suburban areas which have lower tax rates than urban areas.

 

I get the point and I agree that this isn't the strongest, most intuitive argument. 

 

But tax rates alone don't tell the whole story, do they?  Maybe Gates Mills can have a lower tax rate because the homes there are valued so high.  Bedford's tax rate is lower than Maples Heights's -- what does that tell us about the difference in the quality of the infrastructure?  And truly rural areas are not sprawl -- they might not have sewer and water lines, and may still have more density in local towns, just on a smaller scale (a few blocks).  And how much of the infrastructure does government (taxes) even support?  Roads, bridges, and?  Some suburbs have their own sewer and water departments, but generally neither property taxes nor income taxes fund water/sewer/gas/electrical line maintenance. In many cases, the entire utility subscriber base, all the customers, pay the same rate -- so maybe it would be better to consider utility rates over time or utility companies' expenditures on maintenance in particular communities to see what the cost is.  I don't think that is public information.  And not all infrastructure "fails" in the same way or at the same rate.  We can't even just look at the revenue, but have to look at the spending side too -- not all companies/governments maintain all types of infrastructure to the same quality.  Some may think that a "C" quality bridge is just fine.  What is "good enough" in Cleveland might not be good enough in Chagrin Falls.  In other words, it's a complex issue and there are a lot of factors that go into what the maintenance costs of infrastructure are that aren't reflected in tax rates.

 

And yes, I agree that this is a more complex issue than StrongTowns often makes it out to be. 

 

But that doesn't mean that sprawl -- which objectively requires more miles of infrastructure per person than a neighborhood with a higher density -- doesn't eventually have higher maintenance costs per person served. 

 

Whether the people in low-density neighborhoods are paying the true cost of their extra miles of sewer and electric lines between houses (or whether they should be) is a separate question.

I don’t think the arguments against suburbs are very effective. So many hinge on the idea that if a person lives in a suburb, they are immoral. I see this from Cleveland council people on social media. It’s like how PETA goes after people who eat meat. I get where they are coming from but you can’t persuade people by condemning them. 
 

The thing I always come back to is, if you want to “beat” suburbs, offer a better product. In 2024, there isn’t that much housing to choose from and it is expensive. From what I have read, Cleveland doesn't have much unused housing that is in good condition either, so it’s not like if 20,000 new homeowners decided to move in tomorrow there would be housing for all of them. And the hot neighborhoods have houses approximating Solon prices or more. If cities would make it easier to add more housing or replace low quality houses, they would be at an advantage. Like was said earlier, most suburbs don’t want to grow, so whoever is willing to offer more better, newer options is going to be attractive.

 

I actually think this is a big risk for suburbs. Their populations are going to age and since they have worked against growth or change at for so long, they won’t be desirable anymore. Any given city council meeting in the suburbs has people ranting about not changing anything. This is where Cleveland can win. 

21 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

That's what will happen if it's the only way.   The majority of non-coastal Americans don't wish to live in close quarters and will take the steps necessary to not have to do so.  Those who desire density are already there.

 

Decentralized employment makes that easier and therefore more likely.

 

Nope, I'm in the suburbs because it's far cheaper than the dense places I want to live. If what you said was true I my house wouldn't be worth 25 percent of what a more urban equivalent is. Free markets at work.

19 hours ago, Ethan said:

I understand the theory. Given that theory, one should expect rural and suburban areas to have higher tax rates than urban areas, at least once they reach maturity. However, we not only don't see this in reality, we see the opposite. Rural areas have lower tax rates across the board than suburban areas which have lower tax rates than urban areas. 

 

 

 

(Pre Cleveland increasing to 2.5%)

 

I can't find a good map for municipal income tax rates, the above is the best I could find, but from what I can tell the trend is less clear, but it still tilts in the same direction as the other taxes. 

 

If the argument is that the suburbs haven't reached infrastructural maturity yet, then when will they? Mentor, which is definitely a sprawlburb if anywhere is, grew ~750% between 1960 and 1970 and then grew modestly before starting to decline in population more recently. We can argue about exactly when we start the clock, but it clearly is beyond or closely approaching the 50 year mark and has lower, sales, income, and property tax rates than Cleveland or most of the inner ring suburbs. And I wouldn't say its infrastructure is in worse shape on average. Obviously that's just one example, but I don't think it's an exception. 

 

Even if these burbs hit a massive infrastructure repair bill in the next few years, it seems to me that they have plenty of room to raise taxes and still be competitive with the more urban areas on tax burden. 

 

I'm not trying to argue for sprawl here, this argument makes sense in theory, but doesn't seem to bear out in practice. Basically, if you're trying to convince anyone that sprawl is bad, I wouldn't use this argument... There are better arguments and I'd stick with those. Don't shoot the messenger. 

 

Those rural areas have lower taxes because of water, sewer and other service. A place on a well and septic tank/leach bed damn well better be cheaper than one with utilities you have to maintain yourself. We have had 3 wells go dry on just one property since I have been alive. If my kid is losing 1.5 hours a day sitting on a bus to get to school it had better be cheaper. Power that goes off all the time because there's no redundancy better lower my taxes. $120 a month trash bill because the garbage truck only stops every 800 feet instead of every 40. No natural gas service so you gotta pay a guy in a truck to come along and fill your tank up.

 

People don't think about how much of a tax there is on their time the further out you go. Everything is inconvenient. A lot of people don't value their time.

I understand a lot of people haven't had the opportunity to compare overall costs of different locations in the way that I have. I have lived in every type of area. Costs that you save one way get transferred to other ways. You pay less tax but your other bills go up. Way up in some cases. People don't think about how having a well makes your electric bill go up because of having to run the electric water pump. And when the power shuts off you have no water.

We don't need to demonize the suburbs and exurbs. They demonize themselves. I wonder how many people in this audience consider themselves a Christian, yet spewed such hate and venom against this Christian-sponsored development project?

 

https://www.clevescene.com/news/a-christian-nonprofit-wants-to-build-a-small-womens-homeless-shelter-in-munson-township-the-towns-residents-came-out-in-force-to-kill-the-p-43757546

Jaysus, some of those comments are truly appalling -- but not really surprising. 

17 hours ago, coneflower said:

I don’t think the arguments against suburbs are very effective. So many hinge on the idea that if a person lives in a suburb, they are immoral. I see this from Cleveland council people on social media. It’s like how PETA goes after people who eat meat. I get where they are coming from but you can’t persuade people by condemning them. 
 

The thing I always come back to is, if you want to “beat” suburbs, offer a better product. In 2024, there isn’t that much housing to choose from and it is expensive. From what I have read, Cleveland doesn't have much unused housing that is in good condition either, so it’s not like if 20,000 new homeowners decided to move in tomorrow there would be housing for all of them. And the hot neighborhoods have houses approximating Solon prices or more. If cities would make it easier to add more housing or replace low quality houses, they would be at an advantage. Like was said earlier, most suburbs don’t want to grow, so whoever is willing to offer more better, newer options is going to be attractive.

 

I actually think this is a big risk for suburbs. Their populations are going to age and since they have worked against growth or change at for so long, they won’t be desirable anymore. Any given city council meeting in the suburbs has people ranting about not changing anything. This is where Cleveland can win. 

I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not against suburbs per se, but arguing that we can build them better, and that certain development patterns that require more maintenance should pay more of the cost for that privilege.  If sprawling suburbs had to pay their share of their reduced-density utility lines, Lakewood's utility rates would be a lot less than Avon Lake's and we might not be talking so much about how much higher Lakewood's or Shaker's taxes are.  As a result, I think we would build suburbs with denser cores surrounded by a smaller amount of lower-density development -- think Van Aken or Shaker Square, built on a transit line and density nearby, but lower density within easy walking and biking distance.

 

I also think that we need to change the culture to make it easier/more acceptable to buy a house and completely renovate it without going broke.  As long as it is cheaper and easier to "build new" than renovate, we'll be leaving behind (and have already left behind and left to rot) a lot of quality structures that could be renovated.  Your thoughts on the risks to older suburbs is spot on.

 

Browns continue to add land in Berea
By Ken Prendergast / March 7, 2024

 

Either an affiliate of the Cleveland Browns or the city of Berea own all of the land visible on the right side of Front Street including the former Serpentini Collision Center until reaching north to Lou Groza Boulevard, marked by the traffic signal in the distance. Both the Browns and the city also own much of the land on the other side of the street, including the last house on the left. In their place, the Browns’ owners plan to construct a large, mixed-use development (Google). CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE THEM.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/03/07/browns-continue-to-add-land-in-berea/

Great reporting @KJPbut the lack of response here speaks  volumes. My initial reaction was one of disappointment that this isn’t happening downtown - but after reading the article I better understand what is motivating the Haslams in this direction. 
 

Now the question is, are they intent on building a  nearby suburban stadium too? 
I guess we’ll find out in the near future - but meanwhile, do we have any Urban Ohio sleuths with connections to Mayor Bibbs or to the Browns? 
 

Inquiring minds wanna know..

More Rocky River new infill:

 

 

That's Roundstone Insurance, moving from Lakewood because Lakewood couldn't figure out how to keep them 

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2024/04/solon-council-declines-amended-contract-with-odot-for-us-422-interchange-project.html

 

(paywalled)

 

Park Place Tech seals HQ deal
By Ken Prendergast / April 15, 2024

 

After a year-long search for a new headquarters, Park Place Technologies has closed on its deal to acquire Progressive Direct Insurance’s Alpha Campus in Highland Heights. Consummation of the purchase agreement sets the stage for renovating the multi-building campus and ultimately relocating to it 500 headquarters employees from neighboring Mayfield Heights. Warehouse operations in Solon will also be consolidated on the new site.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/04/15/park-place-tech-seals-hq-deal/

1 property down, probably about 3 more to go for Progressive 😆. Probably going to be difficult unloading their Campus 1 building on Wilson Mills. Lots of sqft in that campus. 

1 hour ago, dwolfi01 said:

1 property down, probably about 3 more to go for Progressive 😆. Probably going to be difficult unloading their Campus 1 building on Wilson Mills. Lots of sqft in that campus. 

The FloGressive Appartments.  

 

Rocky River apartments to open May 1

By Ken Prendergast / April 17, 2024

 

In recent years, Cleveland-based Krueger Group has been busily adding new apartments in Cleveland’s hottest neighborhoods in the urban core. But on May 1, they and partner RHM Real Estate Group of Lyndhurst are due to open ORRIS, 22655 Center Ridge Rd., the first new apartment building in suburban Rocky River in a decade.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/04/17/rocky-river-apartments-to-open-may-1/

That stretch of Center Ridge is ripe for a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use reimagining.

On 4/15/2024 at 3:15 PM, dwolfi01 said:

1 property down, probably about 3 more to go for Progressive 😆. Probably going to be difficult unloading their Campus 1 building on Wilson Mills. Lots of sqft in that campus. 

 

Campus 1 will officially be listed for sale/lease in the coming weeks.

54 minutes ago, mthompson said:

 

Campus 1 will officially be listed for sale/lease in the coming weeks.

The Cleveland Clinic doesn't have a colossal facility full of God knows what at that particular freeway exit... yet.

@mthompson here it is....

 

 

Progressive Insurance puts offices up for sale
By Ken Prendergast / April 18, 2024

 

Although the global insurance provider cautioned that this day was coming, it doesn’t make its arrival any easier. Mayfield Village-based Progressive Insurance has announced that it will offer for sale millions of square feet of office space here in Greater Cleveland and around the country. This comes at a time when nearly every office-based employer is shedding office space in favor of remote work, too.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/04/18/progressive-insurance-puts-offices-up-for-sale/

I can't think of a more precarious time in the office market climate. It's not just hard times for a singular company or a paticular city or even region. This seismic upheaval is nationwide and probably worldwide although l haven't read about that. 

 

This affects everything from city taxation numbers, city businesses that depend on those workers for their livelihood, the firms designing new buildings, the construction workers building them to the overall feel of a paticular city. We often overuse the term "gamechanger" but this time it is appropriate. 

 

There's still a massive need for residential so that mitigates the problem somewhat but still... Technology has always upended the status quo and now that many, many jobs can be done from home society will look a lot different in the years to come.

13 hours ago, cadmen said:

I can't think of a more precarious time in the office market climate. It's not just hard times for a singular company or a paticular city or even region. This seismic upheaval is nationwide and probably worldwide although l haven't read about that. 

 

This affects everything from city taxation numbers, city businesses that depend on those workers for their livelihood, the firms designing new buildings, the construction workers building them to the overall feel of a paticular city. We often overuse the term "gamechanger" but this time it is appropriate. 

 

There's still a massive need for residential so that mitigates the problem somewhat but still... Technology has always upended the status quo and now that many, many jobs can be done from home society will look a lot different in the years to come.

 

I weep for our future, as we become a country of hermits, hiding in our basements on zoom calls, ordering tchotchke via Amazon, food via Door Dash, all while polishing our AR-15's in the gun locker.   

 

It should be stressed that this is largely an American problem.   People in Europe, Asia and Australia are still more likely to go to work in an office, shop in malls, and get out and interact with fellow humans. 

 

 

Yet our economy is crushing Europe. In America, around 22% of workers are working remote compared to 9% in Europe. It’s certainly more but I don’t share the same concern about a nation of hermits. The biggest cultural phenomenon of 2023 was the Taylor Swift tour, which was all about collective sharing and experience. People want to be with each other but it’s around shared interests and passions. 
 

Now let’s think about office buildings, suburban ones specifically. I believe it is a normal human reaction to want to get out of that environment. The movie Office Space picked it apart 25 years ago. Long before COVID, plenty of people in non-office jobs would say, “I don’t know how you do that every day.” The answer wasn’t, “Oh, I love it!” It was “I don’t have a choice I need to make money.”
 

The thing that is interesting to me is what happens if one day the management at Progressive changes philosophy. Selling your buildings is a big choice. On the flip side, having all your workers in a ton of different buildings in different cities doesn’t really seem much more efficient than letting them work from home. I will be curious to see where this all goes. 

2 hours ago, coneflower said:

 I will be curious to see where this all goes. 

I predict a future that includes at least two, if not three, days in the office for in-person meetings.  It will take a decade to absorb all the excess office space we have now, but the time will come when we will need more -- and Progressive will need more office space.  It probably won't look like the current office space, a new office space standard is likely to emerge.  Be prepared to incentivize Progressive to come downtown when the time comes!

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

I predict a future that includes at least two, if not three, days in the office for in-person meetings.  It will take a decade to absorb all the excess office space we have now, but the time will come when we will need more -- and Progressive will need more office space.  It probably won't look like the current office space, a new office space standard is likely to emerge.  Be prepared to incentivize Progressive to come downtown when the time comes!

This is absolutely not happening anytime in the short-to-medium term future and would require dismantling the culture Progressive has built. I have colleagues in Akron, Columbus, Colorado, Illinois, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Maryland, among others, and I can tell you I don't believe any of them would be down to relocating to the Cleveland area.

Oof.

36 minutes ago, bikemail said:

This is absolutely not happening anytime in the short-to-medium term future and would require dismantling the culture Progressive has built. I have colleagues in Akron, Columbus, Colorado, Illinois, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Maryland, among others, and I can tell you I don't believe any of them would be down to relocating to the Cleveland area.

This is a fair point. I don’t view this as an insult either. I think the difference of our current time is people pick where they want to live and base everything around that. The stats show the lowest number ever of people are moving for jobs in America. 
 

I personally think suburban office buildings are really vulnerable because they are firmly based in an old era of work. 

4 hours ago, coneflower said:

Yet our economy is crushing Europe. In America, around 22% of workers are working remote compared to 9% in Europe. It’s certainly more but I don’t share the same concern about a nation of hermits.

You’re talking in economic terms but I think @Cleburger is talking about quality of life. And the US already has such a problem with loneliness it’s been declared a public health emergency.

Oh, yes, I certainly don’t dispute the rise of loneliness. I do think the cause of that is multi-faceted with very deep roots. Yuval Noah Harari says we humans were happier before we evolved to farm and use technology. 

My POV is that driving to an office, especially one like those Progressive is selling, is not making that big of a difference in the big scheme of things. But I am sure there are people

studying this over time. 

Edited April 19, 20241 yr by coneflower

Most of America, the world really, was agrarian until the last 150 years. I wonder if loneliness were a problem when most people lived in farming communities. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Most of America, the world really, was agrarian until the last 150 years. I wonder if loneliness were a problem when most people lived in farming communities. 

 

 

 

In Harlan Hatcher's book on the Western Reserve, he noted that people were assigned to travel around to visit the reserve's first settlers because they were so lonely and disconnected from each other. 

On 4/18/2024 at 8:40 AM, KJP said:

@mthompson here it is....

 

 

Progressive Insurance puts offices up for sale
By Ken Prendergast / April 18, 2024

 

Although the global insurance provider cautioned that this day was coming, it doesn’t make its arrival any easier. Mayfield Village-based Progressive Insurance has announced that it will offer for sale millions of square feet of office space here in Greater Cleveland and around the country. This comes at a time when nearly every office-based employer is shedding office space in favor of remote work, too.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/04/18/progressive-insurance-puts-offices-up-for-sale/

Would love to see some of their art collection donated to CMA or MOCA in all this mess at least.

As someone who commuted to a standard Initech style office park in Valley View for 10 years, you can pry work-from-home from my cold dead hands. 

On 4/19/2024 at 10:17 AM, Foraker said:

I predict a future that includes at least two, if not three, days in the office for in-person meetings.  It will take a decade to absorb all the excess office space we have now, but the time will come when we will need more -- and Progressive will need more office space.  It probably won't look like the current office space, a new office space standard is likely to emerge.  Be prepared to incentivize Progressive to come downtown when the time comes!

 

This is a good topic, but let's continue in the Remote Work thread.

On 3/7/2024 at 8:01 PM, KJP said:

 

Browns continue to add land in Berea
By Ken Prendergast / March 7, 2024

 

Either an affiliate of the Cleveland Browns or the city of Berea own all of the land visible on the right side of Front Street including the former Serpentini Collision Center until reaching north to Lou Groza Boulevard, marked by the traffic signal in the distance. Both the Browns and the city also own much of the land on the other side of the street, including the last house on the left. In their place, the Browns’ owners plan to construct a large, mixed-use development (Google). CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE THEM.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/03/07/browns-continue-to-add-land-in-berea/

 

It looks like the last holdout on Pearl St finally agreed to sell to the Browns (for $550,000!).  599 Pearl St. is on the Berea Planning Commission docket for razing, a couple weeks after the former Serpentini Collision and the other few remaining houses were approved for demolition.

On 4/19/2024 at 12:49 AM, Cleburger said:

 

I weep for our future, as we become a country of hermits, hiding in our basements on zoom calls, ordering tchotchke via Amazon, food via Door Dash, all while polishing our AR-15's in the gun locker.   

 

It should be stressed that this is largely an American problem.   People in Europe, Asia and Australia are still more likely to go to work in an office, shop in malls, and get out and interact with fellow humans. 

 

 

 

We've had this conversation before.   Technology has reduced the need for extraneous action and especially for "forced" interaction, the latter of which is so generally unpopular that I can't think of any innovations that reduced it that didn't catch on (I don't doubt that there are some, I just can't think of any.)  It has not necessarily reduced interaction.   

 

What it has done is allowed for more careful and selective interaction.   As far as introverts are concerned, it's also allowed for networking that makes that approach to life more comfortable, so people are more assertive about facilitating it (irony noted).  It's allowed for interaction based on likes and interests, even obscure ones.    The "brony effect", where people connect based on shared interests that might have been pursued alone if at all, is a real thing.  Technology also allows someone who has tired of interaction to withdraw from same more easily.

 

Development, especially in the suburbs, will be more successful when this is reflected.