Cleveland State University to honor Norm Krumholz's 90th birthday today with street renaming (photos)

 

What an incredible city this could have been today, if not for Norm Krumholz. That he is honoroed with a street name shows the city still doesn't get it.

Cleveland State University to honor Norm Krumholz's 90th birthday today with street renaming (photos)

 

What an incredible city this could have been today, if not for Norm Krumholz. That he is honoroed with a street name shows the city still doesn't get it.

 

What is the deal with Krumholz?  Can someone give me the quick wiki on why we should hate him?

 

 

Cleveland State University to honor Norm Krumholz's 90th birthday today with street renaming (photos)

 

What an incredible city this could have been today, if not for Norm Krumholz. That he is honoroed with a street name shows the city still doesn't get it.

 

What is the deal with Krumholz?  Can someone give me the quick wiki on why we should hate him?

 

City Planning head Stokes to Kucinich administrations, also known as the as the late '60s - '70s. 

I mean is there anything specific he did/project he botched?  Can't really blame him for white flight and our industries being undercut by cheap labor elsewhere. 

Can we get back on topic?  Thanks!

He's a retired urban planning professor at CSU and they're talking about them naming a campus street after him, and discussing how that came to be... it's your call but I wouldn't say it's off topic.

 

Krumholz pioneered the idea of 'equity planning' which is basically urban planning with an explicit social justice bent. It's pretty solidly left-wing, political stuff so I guess that's why it'd be controversial? He is highly regarded nationally in the field, however.

 

https://m.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2015/10/08/on-equity-planning-in-cleveland-segregation-cdcs-and-more-a-long-chat-with-norman-krumholz-former-city-planner-of-cleveland

 

http://www.clevelandartsprize.org/awardees/norman_krumholz.html - this link has a nice 3 minute video interview at the bottom of the page

He wasn't big on rail, didn't want to extend the rapid.  That's all I could find for the negative column. 

I'm waiting for someone to specify which of his  policies made Cleveland worse.  I've seen blanket statements but no substance.

In terms of transit, I'm pretty sure he pushed for better service for Cleveland residents over expansion of the system into the suburbs, and trying to attract the suburban residents at all. I can see both sides of that.

 

It'd be easy to make the argument that because they decided to ignore suburbanites, that's why today you have a suburban population where most people have never ridden a bus and an rta that is hobbling along financially and politically. Government programs with broad political support tend to be the best at surviving.

 

But I can also see Norm's side of the argument.

^ No, MUCH worse than that. He KILLED the Cleveland subway project. I think the city actually had Federal funds allocated to it---and he sent them back.

^ No, MUCH worse than that. He KILLED the Cleveland subway project. I think the city actually had Federal funds allocated to it---and he sent them back.

 

I think you’re confused as to what Krumholz did and didn’t do. To say, as you did at the beginning of this thread, that Cleveland would be such an incredible city without Krunholz is blatantly untrue.

 

Krumholz as City Planner didn’t have enough power to single handedly change Cleveland for better or worse. Other factors such as poverty, white flight, other politicians, had much more influence on Cleveland.

 

To say Krumholz “KILLED” the Cleveland subway project is also untrue. According to Cleveland Historical, Krumholz was opposed to the Downtown People Mover which was a late 1970’s plan for an an elevated rail line throughout downtown. The mayor and other planners at the time also opposed it because they believed it was socially inequitable and would negatively impact RTA. The block grant that was awarded Cleveland for this project was returned to the federal government.

 

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/798

 

Krumholz had nothing to do with any subway plan.

 

County Engineer Albert S. Porter was the one who killed the Cleveland subway:

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/361

 

I’ll tell you what Krumholz did do: He “assisted in blocking the proposed Clark Freeway (I-290), which would have displaced 1,400 families on the city’s east side – proposing instead a much less damaging alternative route for the highway (neither of which was built)”

He deserves a lot of credit for helping, along with others, to block that freeway.

 

All of this info is readily available on the internet and should have been researched before erroneously posting that he “ruined Cleveland” and “killed the subway.”  Both of those statements are completely untrue.

^If what you say is true, then I stand corrected, I apologize. If so, I was incorrectly informed by others who are reliable sources who had told me that Krumholz was responsible for killing a downtown subway plan and returned related funding.

I personally think that if Krumholz had more power and more of his policies were enacted, Cleveland would be in better shape today.  This is just my mho.  I am a big admirer of Krumholz and he got me interested in Urban Planning at CSU. 

^If what you say is true, then I stand corrected, I apologize. If so, I was incorrectly informed by others who are reliable sources who had told me that Krumholz was responsible for killing a downtown subway plan and returned related funding.

 

Check out the links I posted to the Cleveland Historical pages. On the Cleveland subway link, if you scroll to the bottom there are all sorts of plans and blueprints and some links to audio files. Really interesting stuff.

 

As a side note, the freeway that Krunholz successfully fought was championed by Porter, the anti-subway guy. Porter was all about freeways and hated public transit.

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/55

^thanks. will do. Re Porter, I remember seeing a County highway plan once with Porter's name on it. Was really crazy---In addition to the Clark freeway plowing through Shaker, there were freeways everywhere. I remember one on the west side--running North-south approximately W. 75 that went straight south to Parma from the Shoreway---and I was told the reason the I-71 exit at W. 65/Denison is so strange (extremely wide median and left [vs. right] exit from I-71) was to be an interchange with that N-S highway. And there were other highways as well. So glad that that didn't happen.

Krumholz wasn't even out of school or living in Cleveland yet when the county commissioners put the final nail in the subway's coffin in 1959. Krumholz got his master's degree in 1965 from Cornell.

 

Here's a decent article on the Cleveland subway...

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/361

 

He was a staunch opponent, however, of the Dual Hub rail plans of the 1980s-90s that included a downtown subway.

In terms of transit, I'm pretty sure he pushed for better service for Cleveland residents over expansion of the system into the suburbs, and trying to attract the suburban residents at all. I can see both sides of that.

 

It'd be easy to make the argument that because they decided to ignore suburbanites, that's why today you have a suburban population where most people have never ridden a bus and an rta that is hobbling along financially and politically. Government programs with broad political support tend to be the best at surviving.

 

But I can also see Norm's side of the argument.

 

His side of the argument has been invalidated by history.  He turned the transit system into a social program and persuaded the political PTB to take that approach explicitly.  He did this, probably on purpose, right as the suburban systems that would (and early on, did) contradict his views were being absorbed into the main, and of course there was no private competition.  Being a social program, it had little if any incentive to improve itself but was destined to be de-prioritized by the general trend of politics in that era.

 

Plus, more generally, he was one of Dennis the Menace's main co-conspirators.

 

 

 

Here's a decent article on the Cleveland subway...

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/361

 

 

You mean the same link I posted earlier today?;)

 

Seriously though, Cleveland Historical is a great resource.

In terms of transit, I'm pretty sure he pushed for better service for Cleveland residents over expansion of the system into the suburbs, and trying to attract the suburban residents at all. I can see both sides of that.

 

It'd be easy to make the argument that because they decided to ignore suburbanites, that's why today you have a suburban population where most people have never ridden a bus and an rta that is hobbling along financially and politically. Government programs with broad political support tend to be the best at surviving.

 

But I can also see Norm's side of the argument.

 

His side of the argument has been invalidated by history.  He turned the transit system into a social program and persuaded the political PTB to take that approach explicitly.  He did this, probably on purpose, right as the suburban systems that would (and early on, did) contradict his views were being absorbed into the main, and of course there was no private competition.  Being a social program, it had little if any incentive to improve itself but was destined to be de-prioritized by the general trend of politics in that era.

 

Plus, more generally, he was one of Dennis the Menace's main co-conspirators.

 

 

 

I agree that history works against his viewpoint but for different reasons.  He failed to anticipate job sprawl.  In the long term, extending the reach of the transit system would have helped the people he wanted to help.  And he should have seen it coming.  New employment centers have always been built on the fringes of town, it's not like we just thought of that.  It sounds like he was blinded by resentment.  That rarely leads to good results.

^Extending the Green Line to a giant parking garage at I-271, which is the one specific, viable proposal I know of that he advocated against when in office, would have done very little to help people reach sprawled jobs. I know he also thought very little of the Dual Hub, but I'm not sure if that was really ever on the table in a meaningful way.

In terms of transit, I'm pretty sure he pushed for better service for Cleveland residents over expansion of the system into the suburbs, and trying to attract the suburban residents at all. I can see both sides of that.

 

It'd be easy to make the argument that because they decided to ignore suburbanites, that's why today you have a suburban population where most people have never ridden a bus and an rta that is hobbling along financially and politically. Government programs with broad political support tend to be the best at surviving.

 

But I can also see Norm's side of the argument.

 

His side of the argument has been invalidated by history.  He turned the transit system into a social program and persuaded the political PTB to take that approach explicitly.  He did this, probably on purpose, right as the suburban systems that would (and early on, did) contradict his views were being absorbed into the main, and of course there was no private competition.  Being a social program, it had little if any incentive to improve itself but was destined to be de-prioritized by the general trend of politics in that era.

 

Plus, more generally, he was one of Dennis the Menace's main co-conspirators.

 

 

 

I agree that history works against his viewpoint but for different reasons.  He failed to anticipate job sprawl.  In the long term, extending the reach of the transit system would have helped the people he wanted to help.  And he should have seen it coming.  New employment centers have always been built on the fringes of town, it's not like we just thought of that.  It sounds like he was blinded by resentment.  That rarely leads to good results.

 

To be fair, the main driving force behind industrial sprawl has been CERCLA, which did not pass until 1980.  So unless he was a vocal advocate of such policies (which would not surprise me) he can be excused, somewhat, for this.  While new centers have always been built on the edges of towns, it was CERCLA that made inner city and inner ring sites far less competitive with such.

 

On the other hand, postwar residential sprawl was a sociological perfect storm that in hindsight he should have known better than to try to thwart.

I personally think that if Krumholz had more power and more of his policies were enacted, Cleveland would be in better shape today.  This is just my mho.  I am a big admirer of Krumholz and he got me interested in Urban Planning at CSU.

 

Well, what were his policies that weren't enacted that would have left Cleveland in better shape?

 

The issue with Krumholz is his 10 year legacy of Cleveland planner from 1969-1979.  Krumholz presided over city planning in Cleveland in a decade when, for example, the city lost almost 25% of its population, derailed RTA's rail extensions, and killed the approved downtown People Mover project.  Most recently he opposed the redesign of Public Square and the Opportunity Corridor. 

 

Despite his 1970s "Equity Planning'' credentials, after almost 50 years, Cleveland is a top, maybe the #1, poorest large city in the U.S.

 

At least he allowed the Justice Center to be built; the removal of an entire block of early 20th/late 19th century buildings to be replaced by a moat brutalist-style concrete block skyscraper.  The destruction of Short Vincent and the Euclid/E 9th corner with the NCB building is another ''winner''.

 

The Krumholz association with socialist ''CLE default'' Mayor Kucinich doesnt' help his repuation.

^ you certainly give the Director of Planning much more responsibility than they actually have.  And the people mover was a stupid idea.  Take a trip to Detroit or Jacksonville to see one in action.

To be fair, the main driving force behind industrial sprawl has been CERCLA, which did not pass until 1980.  So unless he was a vocal advocate of such policies (which would not surprise me) he can be excused, somewhat, for this.  While new centers have always been built on the edges of towns, it was CERCLA that made inner city and inner ring sites far less competitive with such.

 

On the other hand, postwar residential sprawl was a sociological perfect storm that in hindsight he should have known better than to try to thwart.

 

CERCLA has accelerated it but new industrial complexes have always preferred the edges of town.  They need a lot of land and they don't play well with other uses.  Job sprawl entails more than just factories though, especially now.  Think of all the employment along Richmond Road.  Almost none of it is industrial.

 

^Extending the Green Line to a giant parking garage at I-271, which is the one specific, viable proposal I know of that he advocated against when in office, would have done very little to help people reach sprawled jobs. I know he also thought very little of the Dual Hub, but I'm not sure if that was really ever on the table in a meaningful way.

 

271 is thick with jobs, most of them reachable by the Richmond Rd bus line, which could easily have stopped at said parking garage.  Cutting off the nose to spite the face.

In general, "equity planning" is great if we want Cleveland to maintain it's moral high ground while it crumbles around us.  In practice it opposes just about any development subsidy or public improvement that might appeal to upper or even just middle income people.

, derailed RTA's rail extensions,

 

 

 

Equity planning dies not involve flat out denial of public subsidy.  In Krumholz's book he describes the planning process for apartments at Euclid Beach park.  He insisted that th ed city require the developers to create a public beach.  He wasn't in flat opposition but wanted a concession for the community.  The city rolled over and need creating a beach on their own when they could have insisted on the developer creating one.

To be fair, the main driving force behind industrial sprawl has been CERCLA, which did not pass until 1980.  So unless he was a vocal advocate of such policies (which would not surprise me) he can be excused, somewhat, for this.  While new centers have always been built on the edges of towns, it was CERCLA that made inner city and inner ring sites far less competitive with such.

 

On the other hand, postwar residential sprawl was a sociological perfect storm that in hindsight he should have known better than to try to thwart.

 

CERCLA has accelerated it but new industrial complexes have always preferred the edges of town.  They need a lot of land and they don't play well with other uses.  Job sprawl entails more than just factories though, especially now.  Think of all the employment along Richmond Road.  Almost none of it is industrial.

 

^Extending the Green Line to a giant parking garage at I-271, which is the one specific, viable proposal I know of that he advocated against when in office, would have done very little to help people reach sprawled jobs. I know he also thought very little of the Dual Hub, but I'm not sure if that was really ever on the table in a meaningful way.

 

271 is thick with jobs, most of them reachable by the Richmond Rd bus line, which could easily have stopped at said parking garage.  Cutting off the nose to spite the face.

 

You're right about 271, plus it would likely have increased transit use going downtown, especially in the winter.

 

As for industrial sprawl, yes new sites have always been built on the fringes.  But closer in, businesses would always close and a new one would move in, until they started being potentially liable for pre-existing messes.  The number of abandonded and nearly abandoned former industrial properties in Cleveland and the inner ring is likely an order of magnitude higher than it was in 1980.

Equity planning dies not involve flat out denial of public subsidy.  In Krumholz's book he describes the planning process for apartments at Euclid Beach park.  He insisted that th ed city require the developers to create a public beach.  He wasn't in flat opposition but wanted a concession for the community.  The city rolled over and need creating a beach on their own when they could have insisted on the developer creating one.

 

In all honesty, those apartments should have been market rate.  So if he was involved in that process, that's another strike against him.  Part is now CMHA, another section 8 and now they are the millstone on the community.  I swear,  people talk about Cleveland buliding an airport on the lake but that made more sense than putting public housing there, do we value that asset at all?

Those apartments were likely built as market rate but I did imply that others made the decision and he was ignored.  He can't be blamed either way.  He had no real power just like collier has none today. That's not how city hall operates.

I personally think that if Krumholz had more power and more of his policies were enacted, Cleveland would be in better shape today.  This is just my mho.  I am a big admirer of Krumholz and he got me interested in Urban Planning at CSU.

 

Well, what were his policies that weren't enacted that would have left Cleveland in better shape?

 

The issue with Krumholz is his 10 year legacy of Cleveland planner from 1969-1979.  Krumholz presided over city planning in Cleveland in a decade when, for example, the city lost almost 25% of its population, derailed RTA's rail extensions, and killed the approved downtown People Mover project.  Most recently he opposed the redesign of Public Square and the Opportunity Corridor. 

 

Despite his 1970s "Equity Planning'' credentials, after almost 50 years, Cleveland is a top, maybe the #1, poorest large city in the U.S.

 

At least he allowed the Justice Center to be built; the removal of an entire block of early 20th/late 19th century buildings to be replaced by a moat brutalist-style concrete block skyscraper.  The destruction of Short Vincent and the Euclid/E 9th corner with the NCB building is another ''winner''.

 

The Krumholz association with socialist ''CLE default'' Mayor Kucinich doesnt' help his repuation.

 

What Dennis knew about urban development and design was on a par with what he knew about managing difficult underlings so that they did not damage his agenda by angering skeptics.  Krumholz was his "brains" in this matter, the only checks on him were council and the private sector.

Those apartments were likely built as market rate but I did imply that others made the decision and he was ignored.  He can't be blamed either way.  He had no real power just like collier has none today. That's not how city hall operates.

 

The tower may or may not have been but likely included requirements for "subsidized" units.  The outbuildings on that lot are CMHA.  Reality is that the two don't play nicely very close together, especially in an area that should demand a premium.  Look at the rents in the Bratenhal towers. 

Nothing to do with Krumholz though.  The decision was made without his input.  The planning director does not have much power in Cleveland 

^ you certainly give the Director of Planning much more responsibility than they actually have.  And the people mover was a stupid idea.  Take a trip to Detroit or Jacksonville to see one in action.

 

Doesn't have much power yet he did kill the people mover, opposed RTA rail extensions, and is associated with Cleveland's collapse.  Given your bias for Krumholz, it's not surprising that you tout his self-serving book and that socialist Equity Planning.  Being a part of 3 administrations from '69-'79, especially the Stokes and Kucinich era, is enough that this guy is a short-sighted progressive-socialist.  But hey, thanks for the Justice Center.

 

Again, what Krumholz ideas were blocked that would have saved Cleveland?

^ you certainly give the Director of Planning much more responsibility than they actually have.  And the people mover was a stupid idea.  Take a trip to Detroit or Jacksonville to see one in action.

 

Yet, Krumholz didn't oppose the People Mover for being a bad idea. 

 

What were Krumholz's 1970s ideas regarding transit/RTA that we're seeing the benefits of in 2017 Cleveland? 

Nothing to do with Krumholz though.  The decision was made without his input.  The planning director does not have much power in Cleveland

 

Then if Krumholz didn't really do anything in Cleveland for the 10 years the city collapsed, what's the big deal about this guy?

It doesn't make much sense to employ a planning director and not give them any planning authority.  I'm not saying that isn't how we do it here, just saying it doesn't make much sense.  The buck has to stop somewhere.

 

I still don't feel like I fully understand the impact of Krumholz.  On the whole it's unclear how much influence he had.  As to direct criticisms, it can be hard to separate the ideological from the technical.  I'm definitely getting a sense of knee-jerk myopia, which seems problematic regardless of your worldview.

You have failed to make any cogent arguments against Krumholz besides giving him mire imagined power than he had.  I don't think I should have to explain why a street is named in his honor on tge CSU campus. 

 

I could also say that you bis against the gut are clouding your judgment if him.  Let me ask you one thing, have you ever met him. Talked to him, or taken a class with him? 

 

You want to blame the guy for global forces that caused cleveland's decline and the fact he was against the people mover is a good thing.  Anybody who still thinks it was good when we have the benefit of hindsight might need a field trip to Detroit and Jacksonville as I stated earlier.

You have failed to make any cogent arguments against Krumholz besides giving him mire imagined power than he had.  I don't think I should have to explain why a street is named in his honor on tge CSU campus. 

 

I could also say that you bis against the gut are clouding your judgment if him.  Let me ask you one thing, have you ever met him. Talked to him, or taken a class with him? 

 

You want to blame the guy for global forces that caused cleveland's decline and the fact he was against the people mover is a good thing.  Anybody who still thinks it was good when we have the benefit of hindsight might need a field trip to Detroit and Jacksonville as I stated earlier.

 

The state of 2017 Cleveland is not a bias against Krumholz being a planning director in the 1970s, it's reality.

 

I'm sure he's a nice guy, this isn't personal but to you it is because you sat in his class.  It all reads great on paper.  Global forces took a toll on many U.S. cities, not just Cleveland, so going there in your argument translates to...you have no argument other than the fact you took a course from a nice guy.  The fact that criticism of someone's ideas or policies is taken personally is a reflection of our ''default to being mean'' 2017 society we're stuck in.

 

Also, Cleveland's '70s collapse led to suburban growth, so it had a lot to do with the condition of the City of Cleveland generally that many of its residents left.  By the end of the '70s, Cleveland had a socialist Mayor with a socialist City Planner, with a population fleeing out of the city.  Toss in busing and Cleveland was toast. Socialist Forces.

 

The People Mover is just an example; he didn't oppose it because he thought it was a bad idea.  He did oppose the redesign of Public Square as a bad idea though.  The fact that you hang your argument on the People Mover while stating that Krumholz's blocked ideas (without mentioning any) would have saved Cleveland despite the ''global forces'' argument add-on is telling.

The fact you think the state of Cleveland right now is because of a planning director ftom the 70s is telling.  I gu guess he was so evil and powerful that none of his sinister ideas could be overturned.  Meanwhile, very little of his ideas were ever implemented in Cleveland because the corporate oveterlords (Cleveland Tomorrow and GCP) have run this region since the 80s. 

 

I Guess Krumholz should have used all of his power to prevent global forces.  Maybe we'd even have a sweet monorail like Detroit.

The fact you think the state of Cleveland right now is because of a planning director ftom the 70s is telling.  I gu guess he was so evil and powerful that none of his sinister ideas could be overturned.  Meanwhile, very little of his ideas were ever implemented in Cleveland because the corporate oveterlords (Cleveland Tomorrow and GCP) have run this region since the 80s. 

 

I Guess Krumholz should have used all of his power to prevent global forces.  Maybe we'd even have a sweet monorail like Detroit.

 

The fact that you think this is a personal attack on Mr. Krumholz and defend him because you took one of his courses and think he's ''nice'' is truly telling.

 

The planning director in Cleveland's '70s collapse surely is a large part of creating Cleveland 2017 as was his role in the Planning Commission until 2014..  Especially planning director in the corrupt Stokes and inept Kucinich years.  I don't see the role of global forces on the topic of Cleveland's Public Square redesign that Krumholz opposed.  So, Krumholz was still taking or trying to take a toll on Cleveland until 2014.

 

What, again, were his ideas that were crushed by the ''corporate overlords'' (yep, you took a course at the Goodman-Levin ''Planning'' School)?  Please don't go with that ''Equity Planning'' nonsense in a city like Cleveland where there is little to zero equity involved in that equation.

 

What did Krumholz do for transit given that he killed the People Mover.  Consider as well that Detroit and Jacksonville don't have any other rail systems in place so the PM issue is not comparable.  Krumholz didn't like the route of the PM because it would block architecture, not because he thought it wouldn't work.  Regardless, the PM was Cleveland's last gasp for a downtown complement to the rail transit lines as we're still stuck with a '30s train station in the bowels of what is now allegedly a ''retail mall''.

 

Krumholz also presided over the last era of Cleveland being a transit progressive city when the RTA was created with its plans to implement a countywide rail network.  This was opposed by Krumholz mainly because he saw the short-sighted benefit being to those living in the suburbs somehow being at the expense of poor residents in Cleveland.  Didn't we just have a Public Square replay of this theme last year?  Thanks Norm.  Now we're stuck with the same old CTS and Shaker rail lines.

 

Despite his alleged crushed plans for Cleveland's betterment, Krumholz is surely a leader in creating Cleveland's socialist 2017 reality. 

Ok.  I get it you're trolling. You had me going for a second.  Of course the planning director is responsible for everything bad that happened.  I thought you were making serious accusations but I realize how silky that would be.  I guess the people would have been awesome.  Too bad.

Ok.  I get it you're trolling. You had me going for a second.  Of course the planning director is responsible for everything bad that happened.  I thought you were making serious accusations but I realize how silky that would be.  I guess the people would have been awesome.  Too bad.

 

OK, I get it, you're bowing out 'cuz you just realized you admire Krumholz for personal reasons.

 

Actually it's because the facts of my post you responded to are true.  There was nothing ''trolling'' in that post.

I'm bowing out because you have failed to make a point.  I did enjoy my banter with erocc though. 

 

What did Krumholz do for transit given that he killed the People Mover.  Consider as well that Detroit and Jacksonville don't have any other rail systems in place so the PM issue is not comparable.  Krumholz didn't like the route of the PM because it would block architecture, not because he thought it wouldn't work.

 

On the previous page of this thread I posted a great link to an article from Historical Cleveland on the People Mover.  All you have to do is read it to realize that most of what you are saying is incorrect about the people mover.  Krumholz didn't dislike it because "it would block architecture".  He and others didn't like it because it was a bad idea and it would separate the rich from the poor as a mode of transport.  The PM was a terrible idea no matter how you look at it.  The Detroit PM was conceived around the same time as the Cleveland one and had been a total failure as far as impact and ridership.  It's clear when you use phrases such as "Cleveland's socialist 2017 reality" that you aren't coming from a place of rational thought.

 

 

 

Also, you could respect Krumholz and disagree with some of his ideas.  But Krumholz is recognized nationally as an influential thinker.  I appreciate learning from him at CSU but I also appreciate learning from Ned Hill.  They balanced each other out and made the planning curriculum great.

You have failed to make any cogent arguments against Krumholz besides giving him mire imagined power than he had.  I don't think I should have to explain why a street is named in his honor on tge CSU campus. 

 

I could also say that you bis against the gut are clouding your judgment if him.  Let me ask you one thing, have you ever met him. Talked to him, or taken a class with him? 

 

You want to blame the guy for global forces that caused cleveland's decline and the fact he was against the people mover is a good thing.  Anybody who still thinks it was good when we have the benefit of hindsight might need a field trip to Detroit and Jacksonville as I stated earlier.

 

I can certainly see why a street on a college campus would be named after a long time professor especially one with a national reputation who had held a position of power in the city of said campus.

 

However, he had a lot more influence than is being presented, and that influence was on behalf of policies that turned out to be counterproductive.  For example, he played a key role in maintaining the downtown-centric focus of GCRTA, in a city where downtown is literally on the geographic edge of the region.  That was a mistake made for the wrong reasons.

 

What did Krumholz do for transit given that he killed the People Mover.  Consider as well that Detroit and Jacksonville don't have any other rail systems in place so the PM issue is not comparable.  Krumholz didn't like the route of the PM because it would block architecture, not because he thought it wouldn't work.

 

On the previous page of this thread I posted a great link to an article from Historical Cleveland on the People Mover.  All you have to do is read it to realize that most of what you are saying is incorrect about the people mover.  Krumholz didn't dislike it because "it would block architecture".  He and others didn't like it because it was a bad idea and it would separate the rich from the poor as a mode of transport.  The PM was a terrible idea no matter how you look at it.  The Detroit PM was conceived around the same time as the Cleveland one and had been a total failure as far as impact and ridership.  It's clear when you use phrases such as "Cleveland's socialist 2017 reality" that you aren't coming from a place of rational thought.

 

Sorry, but Krumholz didn't like the route despite what your article states.  It's a given that Krumholz thought the PM would ''separate the rich from the poor as a mode of transportation''.  That was his schtick.  The same old ''rich vs. poor'' issue in Cleveland; notice the Public Square bus argument related only to the poor (aka RTA riders) with no mention of the ''rich'' people (Cleveland speak for people that collect a paycheck)...maybe 'cuz they're all gone.  What a ridiculous argument to use against a form of mass transit in downtown Cleveland: it would separate the rich and poor riders.

 

Krumholz was the last nail in RTA's coffin.  Thanks Norm for blocking the intent of the voters creating RTA in 1974.  What Al Porter did to the voter approved subway in the '50s, Norm Krumholz did to the voter creation of RTA in the '70s.

 

It's clear you struggle with rational thinking by not seeing Cleveland's 2017 socialist reality.  Surely Norm Krumholz struggled with rational thinking by not seeing what was going on in 1970s urban America.

This is getting ridiculous with the "socialist reality" stuff.  The city bends over backwards for corporations and its development strategy focuses on attracting wealthy residents into downtown.  Krumholz opposed the public square redo but it happened anyway because it was a core part of that strategy.  Meanwhile the rough parts of town are worse than ever, and growing. 

 

Say what you will about the "socialist reality" Krumholz wanted but don't try to tell me he got it.  Any pretense of that was given up long ago.

This is getting ridiculous with the "socialist reality" stuff.  The city bends over backwards for corporations and its development strategy focuses on attracting wealthy residents into downtown.  Krumholz opposed the public square redo but it happened anyway because it was a core part of that strategy.  Meanwhile the rough parts of town are worse than ever, and growing. 

 

Say what you will about the "socialist reality" Krumholz wanted but don't try to tell me he got it.  Any pretense of that was given up long ago.

 

Krumholz & Co. certainly got some of their socialist goals.  The middle class simply left Cleveland due to, among other things, policies by the Krumholz styled crowd.  The whole rich vs. poor schtick is still being played in Cleveland; problem is there are no ''rich people'' left.  So of course the city has to bend over backwards to retain and attract corporations (losing Eaton, not landing Progressive or American Greeting) as well as residents with paychecks (cleveland speak for ''rich or wealthy people'').  Of course people want to live downtown, glad to see Cleveland has entered the 1990s.

 

Krumholz & Kucinich were so bad for business in the '70s that even the mafia had scheduled a hit on Dennis.  Of course the 1978 Default was a massive nail in the Cleveland coffin followed by the final nail being set with busing in 1979. 

 

So, please do not dismiss the socialist history and its result in Cleveland 2017.  Sounds like you weren't there for the fun back then.

 

Cleveland has a long way to go to replenish its tax base.  It's certainly a different downtown today, as well as in OC, D-S, UC, and Tremont.  Cleveland needs to bend backwards even more to get people into the city, but especially with the corporate issue, also known as jobs.