Berea senior housing project gets construction extension

 

The planned unit development, or PUD, will be geared to the active age 55 and older population. As many as 100 units will be located inside the privately owned, three-story building, which will be situated on more than 5 acres of land between Riveredge Parkway and Sheldon Road. The site plans also include a nature trail.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/berea/index.ssf/2018/11/berea_senior_housing_project_g.html

Seven Hills City Council eyeing approvals for 50-acre mixed-use Rockside Road project

https://www.cleveland.com/seven-hills/index.ssf/2018/12/seven_hills_city_council_eyein.html

 

 

That is a beautiful sight. I would argue that hotel has been the biggest suburban eyesore in the region, for a very long time. .

Medina sees $67.8 million in construction investment in 2018

https://www.cleveland.com/medina/2019/02/medina_sees_678_million_in_con.html

Edited February 26, 20196 yr by KJP

 

I recall discussion of them looking downtown for the HQ expansion. Shame that didn't pan out, but good for the region none the less. It's sure nice seeing all these local companies announcing four digit job expansions lately.

 

University Hospitals planning $200-million expansion of Ahuja Medical Center

Updated 11:27 AM; Today 10:52 AM

By Ginger Christ, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – University Hospitals today announced plans for a $200-million expansion of its Ahuja Medical Center.

 

The expansion will add a second, five-floor hospital tower and a 64,000-square-foot, two-floor sports medicine complex to the southwest side of the existing buildings, according to a news release. Construction is expected to begin in the fall and the project is slated to be finished in 2022.

 

MORE:

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019/03/university-hospitals-planning-200-million-expansion-of-ahuja-medical-center.html

Does anyone know what the tower crane set up just behind Cooper's Hawk in Orange is building? This site is south of the Pinecrest Development.

It's for a Drury Plaza hotel

Edited March 27, 20196 yr by zbaris87

 

Westlake's gain is Lakewood's loss. State subsidies and the lack of a Class A office building in Lakewood, until One Lakewood Place is built, is the culprit.

 

Westlake to gain new office building

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/westlake-gain-new-office-building

 

^Even at this price point, I have a feeling these Rocky River condos are going to sell rather quickly.   This location is pretty much the best of all worlds in NEO..with close proximity to Lakewood/Cleveland, suburban shopping stuff, and, of course, nature of Lake Erie and the Rocky River/ Reservation.

 

The condominiums will cost about $1 million and the townhouses $700,000.

 

"Every unit will have lake views," Brickman said, as the 20 condominiums in a four-story building with a terrace-style design will "nestle into" the sloping site. The proposed 700 Lake project, which takes its name from a house formerly there, also incorporates 13 townhouses on the west side of Breezevale Cove.

Edited May 1, 20196 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

Early plans revealed for luxury apartments at Richmond Heights mall

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/05/early-plans-revealed-for-class-a-mixed-use-development-at-richmond-heights-mall.html

11 hours ago, KJP said:

Early plans revealed for luxury apartments at Richmond Heights mall

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/05/early-plans-revealed-for-class-a-mixed-use-development-at-richmond-heights-mall.html

 

That's what I've been saying needs to happen there for a while now. Too bad it is not the entire site, but it is a start. The Hillcrest area of Richmond Heights, South Euclid, Lyndhurst, etc don't have much in the way of new rental product. And to be honest most of Cleveland's suburban rental stock is lacking any new inventory, save Beachwood and maybe Westlake.

Although Lakewood is about catch up pretty quickly. ?

3 hours ago, Mov2Ohio said:

 

That's what I've been saying needs to happen there for a while now. Too bad it is not the entire site, but it is a start. The Hillcrest area of Richmond Heights, South Euclid, Lyndhurst, etc don't have much in the way of new rental product. And to be honest most of Cleveland's suburban rental stock is lacking any new inventory, save Beachwood and maybe Westlake.

 

With a stagnant to declining population in the region I'm worried about the existing infrastructure obligations in the region relative to tax revenue and thinking that continuing to build further from the city center is a bad idea.  That's smart of Richmond Heights to reconfigure the mall to take advantage of existing infrastructure, but let's not get carried away. 

 

To the extent that we already can't maintain the existing infrastructure (roads and bridges and sewer and water etc.) to high levels of quality, we don't want to add more infrastructure obligations, we want to find ways to have less to maintain -- meaning some infrastructure should go away or at least be downgraded to a lower quality.  Building new suburban rental stock in all of the outer 'burbs seems just as unsustainable as the number of shopping malls we built.  Or we have to find a way to increase our population again.

Agreed, except that I don't think Richmond Heights is really an "outer burb" at this point.  It's maybe "middle ring", but completely built out except redevelopments like this one.

55 minutes ago, X said:

Agreed, except that I don't think Richmond Heights is really an "outer burb" at this point.  It's maybe "middle ring", but completely built out except redevelopments like this one.

Unsure how medium density high end rental stock is going to increase city infrastructure when there was already a mall there. If anything it will add more tax to the rolls to help maintain infrastructure. 

 

13 hours ago, X said:

Agreed, except that I don't think Richmond Heights is really an "outer burb" at this point.  It's maybe "middle ring", but completely built out except redevelopments like this one.

Exactly, Richmond isn't an outer ring burb. And now you are adding density to what was a sprawling mall and losing a vacant Sears store. I'd say it is a plus to a site and city like this (RH).

23 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

With a stagnant to declining population in the region . . . .  [and when] we already can't maintain the existing infrastructure (roads and bridges and sewer and water etc.) to high levels of quality, . . . we [need] to find ways to have less to maintain -- meaning some infrastructure should go away or at least be downgraded to a lower quality. 

1

 

The word "Richmond" was apparently a distraction.  Let me fix that and emphasize some important concerns. 

 

Assuming no pot of gold, the inability to maintain our current infrastructure means we have too much to maintain.  What are we going to start tearing down or downgrading?  Residential streets back to gravel?

 

Many will scoff at that idea, but Ohio's preference for further tax cuts and less infrastructure spending means that that is where we are heading.

21 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

The word "Richmond" was apparently a distraction.  Let me fix that and emphasize some important concerns. 

 

Assuming no pot of gold, the inability to maintain our current infrastructure means we have too much to maintain.  What are we going to start tearing down or downgrading?  Residential streets back to gravel?

 

Many will scoff at that idea, but Ohio's preference for further tax cuts and less infrastructure spending means that that is where we are heading.

Richmond, was no distraction, I just think the new apartments at Richmond Mall was a poor example to make your point on. You talk about maintaining existing  infrastructure, but they actually are demolishing a huge existing and non-utilized parking lot. The new roads for this development will undoubtedly cover less acreage than the parking lots, and storm drains and light poles, and abandoned Sears, take up now. The greenspace around the buildings would absorb rain water much better than the impermeable asphalt there now.

 

21 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

The word "Richmond" was apparently a distraction.  Let me fix that and emphasize some important concerns. 

 

Assuming no pot of gold, the inability to maintain our current infrastructure means we have too much to maintain.  What are we going to start tearing down or downgrading?  Residential streets back to gravel?

 

Many will scoff at that idea, but Ohio's preference for further tax cuts and less infrastructure spending means that that is where we are heading.

 

Not sure I understand. We’re not talking about 306 or Crocker here. This is Richmond Rd, home to two of the busiest corridors in the region (Cedar and Chagrin). It’s also approximately as Far East from Tower City as Harry Buffalo in Lakewood is west from Tower City—not quite the boondocks. 

10 hours ago, Clevecane said:

 

 

Not sure I understand. We’re not talking about 306 or Crocker here. This is Richmond Rd, home to two of the busiest corridors in the region (Cedar and Chagrin). It’s also approximately as Far East from Tower City as Harry Buffalo in Lakewood is west from Tower City—not quite the boondocks. 

 

People from the West side think Coventry is the far East side and that Bay Village is an inner ring suburb.

We know Coventry is not the far Eastside, we just think it's too far East to be worth it.?

(Pulls up google maps)

(Puts in Richmond Mall to Tower City) 12 miles by walking, closest thing to straight line maps app does on my phone.

(Puts in Harry Buffalo Lakewood to Tower City) 7.4 miles.

(Puts in Crocker Park to Tower City) 14 miles.

 

 

13 hours ago, jam40jeff said:

 

People from the West side think Coventry is the far East side and that Bay Village is an inner ring suburb.

 

We all know "perception" vs. "reality" is at play in this situation.

Ironically, Richmond Road is down to one lane in each direction throughout the city of Richmond Heights for a summer-long resurfacing project.  Per city officials, the underlying concrete portion of the road hasn't been replaced since the mall was built in circa 1966.  Coincidentally or not, that's some serious infrastructure work accompanying DPM's development.

 

This is one of the more creative "dead mall" solutions I've seen in years.  It's not often abandoned retail gets transformed into class A residential living (granted, the developers may be doing a little bit of puffing here.  Also, I'll believe the hotel when I see it).  Retail in this portion of the Hillcrest area is no longer feasible.  Over the last several decades, the action has spread to the east (the Wilson Mills and Mayfield Road corridors) and south (first Beachwood, then Legacy, and if you really want to stretch it, Eton and Pinecrest).  You weren't going to see a Westgate or "Shoppes of Parma" outdoor power center-type conversion on this site.  And Amazon is only 2.5 miles or so up the road in the old Euclid Square Mall site.  I hope the project works, especially because there's an empty JCPenney store on the other side of this site that is also open to development.

 

 

Edited May 5, 20196 yr by Down_with_Ctown

8 hours ago, originaljbw said:

(Pulls up google maps)

(Puts in Richmond Mall to Tower City) 12 miles by walking, closest thing to straight line maps app does on my phone.

(Puts in Harry Buffalo Lakewood to Tower City) 7.4 miles.

(Puts in Crocker Park to Tower City) 14 miles.

 

Try the app Maps Ruler, but your point stands.

 

Richmond Mall to Tower City - 10.7 miles

Harry Buffalo to Tower City - 7.1 miles

Crocker Park to Tower City - 13.7 miles

St. John West Shore Hospital (or whatever it's called now) to Tower City - 10.1 miles

 

And just to show how sprawly things quickly get to the South...

 

I-77 and Rockside Rd. to Tower City - 7.3 miles

I-77 and Pleasant Valley Rd. to Tower City - 9.6 miles

Edited May 5, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

Geauga Lake Development news.  https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-geauga/this-is-very-positive-news-proposed-plan-tells-the-tale-of-whats-in-store-for-the-old-geauga-lake

*without clicking the link*

 

Lemme guess. A retail/lifestyle center?

Ugh more suburban tract housing. At least half of it is going to be set aside as parkland I guess. The "commercial" area looks like they want a mini lifestyle center, but I'm sure it will turn out as another strip center.

20 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

Ugh more suburban tract housing. At least half of it is going to be set aside as parkland I guess. The "commercial" area looks like they want a mini lifestyle center, but I'm sure it will turn out as another strip center.

 

After reading the link, this was my thought too. I'm glad only 20 of the 250 acres will be set aside for commercial. That stretch of Aurora Road already has quite a lot of new retail. Not sure it needs another strip mall.

9 hours ago, Mendo said:

 

After reading the link, this was my thought too. I'm glad only 20 of the 250 acres will be set aside for commercial. That stretch of Aurora Road already has quite a lot of new retail. Not sure it needs another strip mall.

 

Yeah, my daughter goes to school out there.   Definitely a lot of relatively new retail surrounding the old Geauga Lake Park.   Hell, even the Odyssey is still going.

Grand Opening today! Minards on Brookpark Road where the old Super K was.

I heard the store was packed because they sent flyers with barcodes that were good for up to $2-$500. What a way to draw a crowd.

^that place is life changing. It's like a home depot crossed with a pet supplies plus crossed with a GFS, and 50% larger and cheaper.

On 5/4/2019 at 10:48 AM, Mov2Ohio said:

Richmond, was no distraction, I just think the new apartments at Richmond Mall was a poor example to make your point on. You talk about maintaining existing  infrastructure, but they actually are demolishing a huge existing and non-utilized parking lot. The new roads for this development will undoubtedly cover less acreage than the parking lots, and storm drains and light poles, and abandoned Sears, take up now. The greenspace around the buildings would absorb rain water much better than the impermeable asphalt there now.

 

You are completely missing my point.  I'm not using Richmond Mall as an example. Re-imagining Richmond Mall to make better use of existing infrastructure is a good idea. This is not about Richmond Mall or its renovation.

 

Try, try again -- the Greater Cleveland area has more infrastructure than we can afford to maintain in good condition.  (And the Ohio legislature has promised to lower taxes again, so this is going to become a more local problem.)  When and how do we start talking about reducing our infrastructure obligations?

15 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

You are completely missing my point.  I'm not using Richmond Mall as an example. Re-imagining Richmond Mall to make better use of existing infrastructure is a good idea. This is not about Richmond Mall or its renovation.

 

Try, try again -- the Greater Cleveland area has more infrastructure than we can afford to maintain in good condition.  (And the Ohio legislature has promised to lower taxes again, so this is going to become a more local problem.)  When and how do we start talking about reducing our infrastructure obligations?

I mean you can't divorce one from the other. One solution to reducing infrastructure obligations is to build more densely on existing infrastructure instead of creating more sprawl that requires more infrastructure. 

4 hours ago, KFM44107 said:

One solution to reducing infrastructure obligations is to build more densely on existing infrastructure instead of creating more sprawl that requires more infrastructure. 

 

 

I feel like we're talking past one another.  I don't disagree that we should build more densely in some areas -- I'm all in on making better use of existing infrastructure. 

 

But because we have ALREADY built more infrastructure than the existing population can afford to maintain in good condition, choosing not to build more infrastructure (choosing not to create more sprawl) is insufficient by itself to put us in a sustainable position.  (Why do I say we already have too much infrastructure --- https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/northeast-ohio-infrastructure-gets-d/)

 

If you have a mortgage, then using your old car instead of buying a new one is a good idea but it's insufficient by itself to reduce the debt.  In other words, while making better use of existing infrastructure by building more densely in some areas is a good thing, it doesn't decrease the overall maintenance expense. 

 

As another example, let's assume that it costs $100 to maintain the roads and utilities in good condition from downtown to Richmond Mall.  If we build more densely at Richmond Mall to make use of that existing under-utilized infrastructure, that does not change how much it costs to maintain the roads and utilities in good condition.  We still have to spend $100 to maintain those roads and utilities in good condition.  The expense side of the equation hasn't changed. 

 

So if we're not going to decrease the expense side, we have to look at the revenue side.  While it doesn't reduce our infrastructure costs to build more densely, it might help on the revenue side -- if we can draw people from outside the region it may increase the tax-paying population (which every city says that they would like to do), or if it draws people from other areas of the region in sufficient numbers that we can abandon or allow the infrastructure they left behind to degrade.  And it is this latter point that not very many people are talking about yet and I think we should be. 

 

Unfortunately, I see no sign that we are going to improve the revenue side -- we will have a fixed population in Northeast Ohio for the foreseeable future (although that may be overly optimistic) and a fixed amount of money to spend on infrastructure (no new taxes, no significant bump in median income to generate significant new revenues -- in fact, the Ohio legislature has promised to lower taxes even further, putting more of the burden on local governments and making this discussion even more important). 

 

If we're not going to increase the revenue side, we have to decrease the expense side.  That means abandoning and/or degrading the quality of some infrastructure (gravel roads? lots over X acreage cut off from public sewers and sent back to septic tanks?) to get to a sustainable balance. 

 

Does that make sense, or do you have another explanation for how building more densely is going to solve this maintenance-expense problem?

20 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

I feel like we're talking past one another.  I don't disagree that we should build more densely in some areas -- I'm all in on making better use of existing infrastructure. 

 

But because we have ALREADY built more infrastructure than the existing population can afford to maintain in good condition, choosing not to build more infrastructure (choosing not to create more sprawl) is insufficient by itself to put us in a sustainable position.  (Why do I say we already have too much infrastructure --- https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/northeast-ohio-infrastructure-gets-d/)

 

If you have a mortgage, then using your old car instead of buying a new one is a good idea but it's insufficient by itself to reduce the debt.  In other words, while making better use of existing infrastructure by building more densely in some areas is a good thing, it doesn't decrease the overall maintenance expense. 

 

As another example, let's assume that it costs $100 to maintain the roads and utilities in good condition from downtown to Richmond Mall.  If we build more densely at Richmond Mall to make use of that existing under-utilized infrastructure, that does not change how much it costs to maintain the roads and utilities in good condition.  We still have to spend $100 to maintain those roads and utilities in good condition.  The expense side of the equation hasn't changed. 

 

So if we're not going to decrease the expense side, we have to look at the revenue side.  While it doesn't reduce our infrastructure costs to build more densely, it might help on the revenue side -- if we can draw people from outside the region it may increase the tax-paying population (which every city says that they would like to do), or if it draws people from other areas of the region in sufficient numbers that we can abandon or allow the infrastructure they left behind to degrade.  And it is this latter point that not very many people are talking about yet and I think we should be. 

 

Unfortunately, I see no sign that we are going to improve the revenue side -- we will have a fixed population in Northeast Ohio for the foreseeable future (although that may be overly optimistic) and a fixed amount of money to spend on infrastructure (no new taxes, no significant bump in median income to generate significant new revenues -- in fact, the Ohio legislature has promised to lower taxes even further, putting more of the burden on local governments and making this discussion even more important). 

 

If we're not going to increase the revenue side, we have to decrease the expense side.  That means abandoning and/or degrading the quality of some infrastructure (gravel roads? lots over X acreage cut off from public sewers and sent back to septic tanks?) to get to a sustainable balance. 

 

Does that make sense, or do you have another explanation for how building more densely is going to solve this maintenance-expense problem?

What you are saying is all true, I'd argue looking at the glass as half empty instead of half full. The bulk of the existing infrastructure however is in Cleveland proper in the form of roads, waterlines, sewers and power lines on dozens of streets that have a handful of houses on them where there used to be 100+. 

 

Due to the economics, perception of safety and general quality of life issues in Cleveland proper, developers aren't going to put this kind of investment in the city outside of certain neighborhoods. I say that to say that the developer is essentially doing what you suggest, reusing existing infrastructure in a better way than it was used before. It's just not in Cleveland proper in those neighborhoods that have emptied out the most.

 

This project will not solve the issue of all the underutilized infrastructure in the inner-city and certain inner-ring 'burbs, but it's not trying to either.

1 hour ago, Mov2Ohio said:

The bulk of the existing infrastructure however is in Cleveland proper in the form of roads, waterlines, sewers and power lines on dozens of streets that have a handful of houses on them where there used to be 100+.

2

 

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.  Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like there are a lot of streets with a couple of empty lots and a multiple rundown houses that are not in good repair, but not streets that have a "handful of houses where there used to be 100+"  That seems like the exception rather than the rule, but I could very well be mistaken.  (If I am, it's even more of a tragedy.)

 

 

1 hour ago, Mov2Ohio said:

Due to the economics, perception of safety and general quality of life issues in Cleveland proper, developers aren't going to put this kind of investment in the city outside of certain neighborhoods. I say that to say that the developer is essentially doing what you suggest, reusing existing infrastructure in a better way than it was used before. It's just not in Cleveland proper in those neighborhoods that have emptied out the most.

 

 

I would agree with that. 

 

But that's not a solution either.  All of these utilities operate within networks, and developers are not managing the utilities.  The roads/water/sewer/electric lines still run through the neighborhoods that are not being reinvested in; and those utilities still have to be maintained to keep the network running.  The working neighborhood isn't going to be happy about a waterline break depriving them of water whether that break is in their neighborhood or upstream in a dysfunctional neighborhood.  Thus the entities responsible for maintaining service in the working neighborhoods will continue to maintain the infrastructure going to them. 

 

You can say I'm only looking at a glass half empty, but we're not making any plans to reduce our infrastructure maintenance costs, and redeveloping some neighborhoods or suburban malls does not address the problem of too much infrastructure in the region for the existing population to support.  

 

Step one, acknowledge the existence of a problem.

Step two, start to look for solutions.  The housing crisis led to lots of abandoned and deteriorated homes being destroyed.  But the infrastructure is still there.  We could build new homes, but we don't have the population to move into them (I would not count on any suburbanites wanting to move to any non-downtown, non-UC neighborhoods right now).  So maybe we should look at areas with lots of vacant lots and buy out the holdouts, then rip out some of the infrastructure and build parks, or consolidate blocks of land and build some giant warehouses and light industrial parks in such a way that we can remove some of the streets or some of the water and sewer lines.  Buying out people who don't want to leave their homes is hard, and expensive.  Maybe we think longer term -- the buyout happens upon death or a move by the current owners.  So an area won't be redeveloped for 20-50 years, we have lots of places that need redevelopment. 

 

Maybe we continue to add land to the Emerald Necklace and can remove some infrastructure in the process.  A larger, more contiguous park increases the quality of our parks and may make Cleveland even more attractive to outsiders. 

 

Maybe we also require developers to retire infrastructure in order to add infrastructure. 

 

What are some other ideas?

 

 

Edited May 14, 20196 yr by Foraker

I don't feel this conversation is really that appropriate for a suburban thread, I'm sure there are some infrastructure topics in either Urbanbar or City Discussion. Development topics aren't for debate, rather for informational purposes.

6 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.  Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like there are a lot of streets with a couple of empty lots and a multiple rundown houses that are not in good repair, but not streets that have a "handful of houses where there used to be 100+"  That seems like the exception rather than the rule, but I could very well be mistaken.  (If I am, it's even more of a tragedy.)

 

 

 

I would agree with that. 

 

But that's not a solution either.  All of these utilities operate within networks, and developers are not managing the utilities.  The roads/water/sewer/electric lines still run through the neighborhoods that are not being reinvested in; and those utilities still have to be maintained to keep the network running.  The working neighborhood isn't going to be happy about a waterline break depriving them of water whether that break is in their neighborhood or upstream in a dysfunctional neighborhood.  Thus the entities responsible for maintaining service in the working neighborhoods will continue to maintain the infrastructure going to them. 

 

You can say I'm only looking at a glass half empty, but we're not making any plans to reduce our infrastructure maintenance costs, and redeveloping some neighborhoods or suburban malls does not address the problem of too much infrastructure in the region for the existing population to support.  

 

Step one, acknowledge the existence of a problem.

Step two, start to look for solutions.  The housing crisis led to lots of abandoned and deteriorated homes being destroyed.  But the infrastructure is still there.  We could build new homes, but we don't have the population to move into them (I would not count on any suburbanites wanting to move to any non-downtown, non-UC neighborhoods right now).  So maybe we should look at areas with lots of vacant lots and buy out the holdouts, then rip out some of the infrastructure and build parks, or consolidate blocks of land and build some giant warehouses and light industrial parks in such a way that we can remove some of the streets or some of the water and sewer lines.  Buying out people who don't want to leave their homes is hard, and expensive.  Maybe we think longer term -- the buyout happens upon death or a move by the current owners.  So an area won't be redeveloped for 20-50 years, we have lots of places that need redevelopment. 

 

Maybe we continue to add land to the Emerald Necklace and can remove some infrastructure in the process.  A larger, more contiguous park increases the quality of our parks and may make Cleveland even more attractive to outsiders. 

 

Maybe we also require developers to retire infrastructure in order to add infrastructure. 

 

What are some other ideas?

 

 

 

That's a thought. The problem with retiring the under utilized infrastructure though is that getting rid of it would make the area THAT much harder to redevelop if the need arose. East Cleveland has started to close off roads that are in disrepair. Maybe if a similar strategy could be taken where infrastructure is mothballed rather than deleted.

 

The problem though with mothballing or demolishing completely is that there are still tax and bill paying residents living in some of these neighborhoods where vacancies outnumber occupied dwellings, which limits the ability to remove the infrastructure be it a road or pipe.

This isn't what the Development threads are for.  I'm sure if you use the search feature you can find a thread about abandoning infrastructure already.

 

Back on topic.

9 hours ago, X said:

I'm sure if you use the search feature you can find a thread about abandoning infrastructure already.

 

 

I disagree that we should discuss suburban development without discussing the costs of doing so, but I'll respect your request.

 

I did search for "abandoning infrastructure" and no such thread exists.  If anyone has any suggestions, please post links.

 

Try this one.

Or in the spirit of "be the change you want to see...", forumers are welcome to create new threads for discussions that are veering off original topic posts. Don't worry, if it's in the wrong section, the Admins and Mods will put it where it needs to be.