For starters, FEB was never promoted for its access to the WFL at all and still isn't even though the WFL line is running again.  At the time of FEB announcement the WFL was reduced to stadium events and paltry weekend service I believe. 

 

That's not true.  FEB was first announced near the end of the Campbell administration in 2005.  At that time, the WFL was running full service.  It wasn't reduced to part time service (weekends and special events; see link, below) until 2010, but was restored to 7-day/week service on May 30, 2013, around the time the E&Y/Aloft Hotel portion of FEB opened.

 

http://www.riderta.com/news/may-30-waterfront-line-opens-seven-days-week

 

Couldn't remember when the WFL hit the skids, thought it was earlier, but nonetheless, FEB was not built because of access to the WFL.  The project was revived while the WFL was pretty much inactive. 

 

No one was using it during its slow, initial death, so it's kind of tough to remember it since its novelty had been wearing off for a long time, and, as we all know, its back in intensive care again.

^The Watefront Line wasn't just a novelty.  When the Flats was exploding, esp on weekend nights in the late 1990s, the WFL (opened June 1996) was moving a lot of people especially from the East Bank station.  As the Flats died out on the East Bank, going pretty much totally belly-up in the mid-2000s, WFL ridership almost completely disappeared, which isn't surprising.  The old Flats was great, but as we saw, it didn't last as the area failed to evolve from cheap, fly-by-night businesses in (often) old rundown warehouses which is NOT true TOD... Also, unfortunately, neither RTA nor the City properly marketed the WFL as it should have; never pointed out, for example, the one-seat-to-office-door possibilities for employees at the North Point, Erieview or City Hall complexes who lived accessibly to the Blue & Green lines, or even the quick, indoor transfer possibilities from the Red Line.  It was pitched as mainly a tourist attraction line mainly serving the R&RHOF (and how many times can you go there, really?).

 

The Flats East Bank is slowly being reborn again; Phase II hasn't even been open a year and has yet to experience summer traffic, which I'm convinced will come, esp with more restaurants opening and excitement, esp the new River Taxi coming online.  And once Phase III wipes out all that surface parking in the middle of FEB I'm sure a number of FEB patrons will opt for the Rapid.

 

I just don't get people like you and Mark Naymik who are so negative toward rail that you're ready to pronounce rail (and TOD) a failure without even having TOD developed at all.  It proves Albert Porterism still haunts this City.

^The Watefront Line wasn't just a novelty.  When the Flats was exploding, esp on weekend nights in the late 1990s, the WFL (opened June 1996) was moving a lot of people especially from the East Bank station.  As the Flats died out on the East Bank, going pretty much totally belly-up in the mid-2000s, WFL ridership almost completely disappeared, which isn't surprising.  The old Flats was great, but as we saw, it didn't last as the area failed to evolve from cheap, fly-by-night businesses in (often) old rundown warehouses which is NOT true TOD... Also, unfortunately, neither RTA nor the City properly marketed the WFL as it should have; never pointed out, for example, the one-seat-to-office-door possibilities for employees at the North Point, Erieview or City Hall complexes who lived accessibly to the Blue & Green lines, or even the quick, indoor transfer possibilities from the Red Line.  It was pitched as mainly a tourist attraction line mainly serving the R&RHOF (and how many times can you go there, really?).

 

The Flats East Bank is slowly being reborn again; Phase II hasn't even been open a year and has yet to experience summer traffic, which I'm convinced will come, esp with more restaurants opening and excitement, esp the new River Taxi coming online.  And once Phase III wipes out all that surface parking in the middle of FEB I'm sure a number of FEB patrons will opt for the Rapid.

 

I just don't get people like you and Mark Naymik who are so negative toward rail that you're ready to pronounce rail (and TOD) a failure without even having TOD developed at all.  It proves Albert Porterism still haunts this City.

 

Never said I don't like rail, just Cleveland's routing, esp its WFL.  No U.S. city is looking to Cleveland for its rail system.  The WFL offers very limited one-seat of office door options; some of the people that live along the Blue-Green Lines in Shaker and still work downtown and the even fewer working at the E&Y Tower. 

 

You are still focusing on the bar crowd using the WFL again.  First, it's not the same crowd in the Flats using the WFL in the '90s.  The WFL is not convenient for visitors staying downtown and why would someone living in the WHD or even the Flats use it to get to work?  Going to airport? walk to TC for the Red Line unless one is using a cab, uber or simply driving.

 

Why would someone, say, living in North Olmsted or Euclid take the WFL?

^But what about someone living in Beachwood, Shaker, University or Warrensville Hts or in Shaker Square/Larchmere working at E&Y or North Point?  And as I noted, why couldn't have Mayor Jane Campbell rode the train from Drexmore to her City Hall office (similar to how Rahm Emanuel rides the Chicago L into his job)?  You always point to the worst case scenarios, not the good one. 

 

I'm focusing on the WFL because you brought it up as not being responsible at all for FEB, to which I disagree. 

 

You also said that University Circle is not developing because of transit and "certainly not the Red Line."  That's just simply false.  As I've noted elsewhere, Ari Maron, whose family's company developed E. 4th Street, Uptown and the United Bank building in Ohio City, stated in a Cleveland Jewish News article a few years ago, that their company specifically sought to develop property within walking distance of a Red Line station.  The 3 Maron developments I mentioned all fit that criteria.  So you're wrong.

You've got it backwards. Cleveland needs TOD to create jobs. Young people move to quality places that offer low-mileage lifestyles, then they look for jobs.

 

Which developments were influenced by transit if not caused by it? Start with Tower City Center redevelopment. Along the Waterfront Line, the investors in the National Terminals Building (now The Archer), The Bingham, Crittenden Court, Kirkham Place Townhouses and a number of restaurants in the mid-1990s all stated that the Waterfront Line was the leading factor in them investing there. The Waterfront Line was projected to carry 600,000 riders per year. Instead it carried twice that in its first year. As the Flats declined, so did the WFL.

 

There are simply too many projects to list. But some of them are listed here as is Cleveland's proficiency in leading in this area:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2015/08/beyond-downtown-clevelands-rta-rebuild-spurring-new-development/

http://www.pps.org/projects/designing-clevelands-first-tod-project-at-e-120th-st-station/

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/New-Cleveland-station-boosts-transit-oriented-development-plan--46847

http://activetrans.org/blog/bus-rapid-transit-can-be-successful-usa

http://urbanscale.com/blog/how-your-city-can-succeed-in-transit-oriented-development/

 

Take care.

 

This is why I think Cleveland needs to take the path of least resistance.  Build the TOD where there is a chance for it to take a foothold due to already existing synergy and attract new young residents (even if they don't use it every day).  IMO the best opportunity for this is W25th/Lorain, followed by W65th on the west side, and E 34 & E 105 on the east side.

^I wish there was TOD activity at those stations, and I'd throw in Cudell and W. 117th as well.  I was hoping the W. 25/Rapid station/Market Square project would move forward, but it's apparently stalled.  I am also hopeful of  the large Duck Island development near the Red Line north of Lorain Av.  I have heard anything about it lately either.  Anybody know the status of these 2 developments?

^But what about someone living in Beachwood, Shaker, University or Warrensville Hts or in Shaker Square/Larchmere working at E&Y or North Point?  And as I noted, why couldn't have Mayor Jane Campbell rode the train from Drexmore to her City Hall office (similar to how Rahm Emanuel rides the Chicago L into his job)?  You always point to the worst case scenarios, not the good one. 

 

I'm focusing on the WFL because you brought it up as not being responsible at all for FEB, to which I disagree. 

 

You also said that University Circle is not developing because of transit and "certainly not the Red Line."  That's just simply false.  As I've noted elsewhere, Ari Maron, whose family's company developed E. 4th Street, Uptown and the United Bank building in Ohio City, stated in a Cleveland Jewish News article a few years ago, that their company specifically sought to develop property within walking distance of a Red Line station.  The 3 Maron developments I mentioned all fit that criteria.  So you're wrong.

 

Not worst case scenarios, just current case scenarios.  How many people live in Shaker et al and work in FEB?  Not enough obviously to carry the WFL.  North Point has been there since the '80s and didn't help the WFL in its 1st round of full service. 

 

So what's the ridership bump on the Red Line from the Maron projects?  I hope the Maron Bros can turn transit use in Cleveland around as they need to keep the Red Line orientation to prove their point. I bet they don't use the Red Line either...lol.  The Intesa project couldn't retain the commercial part of its initial promise.  Someday, perhaps it will take off.

 

The Red Line does offer the best potential and, of course, if the WFL-Light Rails were tweaked a bit, they, as well, could attract jobs, residents and riders again.

 

^

There certainly is limited to zero actual TOD in Cleveland.

 

Most of the land use in the cities of Cleveland, Lakewood, Cleveland Heights and Shaker Hts were designed as TODs to maximize transit use. Shaker Square is used in urban planning textbooks nationwide as one of America's preeminent examples of TOD. And if you want something more recent, Uptown won the top Silver score from Institute for Transportation and Development Policy in competing against projects worldwide.

https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/transit-oriented-development-are-you-on-the-map/best-practices/

 

What I'm getting from his comments is that the TOD of last century isn't really cutting it as employment patterns have changed, and RTA is still clinging to the old patterns.  I would disagree with this assessment to a point as we are seeing University Circle-Cleveland Clinic (the second biggest employment concentration in this area) becoming a mini-hub of sorts for the 32/9 et al. 

 

However, RTA still overstates the importance of downtown in the overall picture, and I would suspect that is due to bureaucratic inertia and a lack of competition than any set policy.  There's still quite a bit of redundancy on some of the routes between natural hub points and downtown.  The Shaker Rapid leads the pack in this regard, both lines don't really need to go downtown and a direct rail connection between Shaker Square and UC/CC has more potential than anything else in town with the possible exception of the Lakeview Terrace site.

 

University Circle isn't developing because of transit, certainly not the Red Line.  The HealthLine is a nice complement but the growth in UC is not because of transit.  I don't see or read any promos for transit with Uptown or UC in general.  Same thing with Flats East Bank.  Transit is there, for now, but wasn't even running full time when the project was announced and opened several years later.  Now the WFL is on the ropes again.  The WFL, like most of the Red Line, is routed poorly.

 

Cleveland continues to sprawl so much that Akron has become a separate metro.  The real problem is the thinning population with the sprawl and the declining population in particular.

 

Jobs and new people are the answer to all these transit dreams.

 

Does it matter so much as to whether Flats East Bank was built because of the WFL or that it is easily served by it?  ... or that if the answer is the former, this necessarily makes the WFL a failure and not worth continuing?  And can you even prove that FEB wasn't at all influenced by the existence of the WFL?  Is it not irrelevant that if, at the time FEB was announced, the WFL wasn't even running full time as you note -- and if, btw, you're right, don't you think that the absence of a development like an FEB (for your purposes, I won't even call it TOD) helped contribute to the WFL's struggling, part-time operation/condition at the time?

 

.. Btw I totally disagree with your premise that University Circle's current thriving situation is not at least, in part, influenced by its accessibility to high-quality, high-capacity mass transit.

 

Of course it doesn't really matter if FEB was developed because of the WFL or as now that it is served by it; what matters is that the WFL is still not attracting sufficient ridership.  I don't think it's time to scale back the WFL, the PD stated it due to other RTA cutbacks.  400 daily riders is lame; there has to be a pretty big step-up in ridership soon.

 

Of course UC's current situation is due, in part, to its proximity to transit.  Mainly the HealthLine, though, at this point.

No, I don't need anymore of your book referrals.  Sprawl goes on in many places; Cleveland's current problem is a lack of new infill residents.  The area is thinning out.

 

Then please stop offering opinions that weren't earned (including that one about a lack of infill residents).

 

Cleveland is a MSA. Akron is a MSA. Both are still part of the Clevleand-Akron CSA as is Canton now: http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/econ/ec2012/csa/EC2012_330M200US184M.pdf

 

You sure are high-maintenance. When am I up for tenure?

 

You don't have to respond at all...Cleveland's MSA is worse off than I thought and it is losing people to Akron's MSA. So Cleveland's heading for the #3 MSA in Ohio?  Wow.  The CSA is still decent but losing ground but Cleveland's MSA is in trouble.  Est. pop. figures come out Thursday.

 

I'll be gone soon anyway...I do hope all works out in Cleveland. 

I was hoping the W. 25/Rapid station/Market Square project would move forward, but it's apparently stalled.

 

Pretty sure this was never really a "project;" just a site planning vision commissioned by RTA and maybe OCI. As far as I know, it's never been clear the property owner is interested in redevelopment.

 

I pretty much agree with PHS14 in all this. RTA just doesn't seem to be a major factor in the small number of new projects we've seen break ground. We still have lots of old transit-proximate housing, and much of the new stuff happens to be too, but due to demo and abandonment, the transit-proximate unit count has probably been dropping in recent years, not growing. Even the supposed boom at UC has been pretty tiny to this point if you go by unit count, though One UC, UC3, and Intessa could change that some.

 

[Edited for clarity]

You've got it backwards. Cleveland needs TOD to create jobs. Young people move to quality places that offer low-mileage lifestyles, then they look for jobs.

 

Which developments were influenced by transit if not caused by it? Start with Tower City Center redevelopment. Along the Waterfront Line, the investors in the National Terminals Building (now The Archer), The Bingham, Crittenden Court, Kirkham Place Townhouses and a number of restaurants in the mid-1990s all stated that the Waterfront Line was the leading factor in them investing there. The Waterfront Line was projected to carry 600,000 riders per year. Instead it carried twice that in its first year. As the Flats declined, so did the WFL.

 

There are simply too many projects to list. But some of them are listed here as is Cleveland's proficiency in leading in this area:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2015/08/beyond-downtown-clevelands-rta-rebuild-spurring-new-development/

http://www.pps.org/projects/designing-clevelands-first-tod-project-at-e-120th-st-station/

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/New-Cleveland-station-boosts-transit-oriented-development-plan--46847

http://activetrans.org/blog/bus-rapid-transit-can-be-successful-usa

http://urbanscale.com/blog/how-your-city-can-succeed-in-transit-oriented-development/

 

Take care.

 

This is why I think Cleveland needs to take the path of least resistance.  Build the TOD where there is a chance for it to take a foothold due to already existing synergy and attract new young residents (even if they don't use it every day).  IMO the best opportunity for this is W25th/Lorain, followed by W65th on the west side, and E 34 & E 105 on the east side.

 

Not so much 34th, indeed I'd advocate either using it as a hub to take load off downtown or simply closing it, as they should 79th.  The prison doesn't bode well for residential.

 

105 definitely, especially if a Shaker line is rerouted through it to CC.  But it will take some work and political gumption.

 

117th has potential too, but again needs political gumption.

Not so much 34th, indeed I'd advocate either using it as a hub to take load off downtown or simply closing it, as they should 79th.  The prison doesn't bode well for residential.

 

105 definitely, especially if a Shaker line is rerouted through it to CC.  But it will take some work and political gumption.

 

117th has potential too, but again needs political gumption.

 

West 117th? It's off to a good start with NRP Group's residential development which said it chose this site due to its transit access:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,925.msg792713.html#msg792713

I pretty much agree with PHS14 in all this. RTA just doesn't seem to be a major factor in the small number of new projects we've seen break ground. We still have lots of old transit-proximate housing, and much of the new stuff happens to be too, but due to demo and abandonment, the transit-proximate unit count has probably been dropping in recent years, not growing. Even the supposed boom at UC has been pretty tiny to this point if you go by unit count, though One UC, UC3, and Intessa could change that some.

 

 

 

I have no idea what your point is.  For one thing, you overlook Uptown (including MOCA), which includes a mixed-use project of 200 apartments (from smaller, dorm-types to $1,900/month units) over a seriously upgraded and expanded retail area -- all on top of what was 2 block-long surface parking lots north and south of Euclid Ave.  Uptown is the definition of TOD; not surprising, as KJP notes, that it merited the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy's "Silver" standard. 

 

But then I ask: what is your definition of Transit Oriented Development?  Little Italy is a tight, dense neighborhood -- perhaps Cleveland's densest per capita -- which began developing in the 1890s and was probably originally oriented to nearby streetcar routes.  Now the neighborhood has the UC/LI Red Line station sitting at its front door retail district, with the southern part of the area near the Cedar-University station.  Is LI not transit oriented?  (and btw, what is transit-proximate?  I've never heard this as a term of art).

 

Fact is, while Cleveland is far from perfect in terms of it's transit system's developing TOD, it's not as bad as you paint it especially when considered viz-a-viz similar-sized older cities in the Northeast and Rust Belt.  Compare Pittsburgh or Baltimore or St. Louis.  And yes, I do look at areas like Shaker Square, Tower City and the entire City of Shaker Heights as highly successful TODs generated by the Rapid system -- they just happen to be old, as are the Blue and Green Lines.  I'm not saying Cleveland couldn't be doing better -- and it should; not just an RTA initiative, but should be planned jointly between RTA and the City -- RTA can and should take a leading role, though.

 

Pretty sure this was never really a "project;" just a site planning vision commissioned by RTA and maybe OCI. As far as I know, it's never been clear the property owner is interested in redevelopment.

 

OK, I'd just as soon not get into a semantics pissing contest, but this was more than just a "vision."  It was a concrete proposal with a (below) detailed artist's rendering.  IIRC there were, at the time, both financing and retailer approval challenges, but it was given prominent play in the PD with considerable positive feedback.

 

http://www.dimitarchitects.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=154&Itemid=60

 

The property owner also supported the concept for redeveloping the SE corner of West 25th/Lorain. GCRTA and OCI told me they wouldn't have invested any time/money into it, and certainly not issued anything publicly, without support from the property owner.

^I have no doubt the property owner supported other people spending money to study and draw interest to their site. In fairness, I did hear at the time from an insider that the owner was indeed investigating redevelopment, but I've never seen any evidence they took any steps to advance the particular vision we all saw. I could be wrong, but I don't count this as a stalled project like some of the concrete, developer-driven proposals we've seen (e.g., Intessa, Brickman's Duck Island, everything Stark has ever hyped in the city).

 

^^We have a time disconnect. Like PHS, I'm focusing on recent and ongoing development trends, not things that happened 100 years ago, in a very different context. I agree with him that these days, transit seems fairly incidental, or at least to play only a small incremental role in market-rate projects. I don't think Uptown happened because of Red Line proximity, and I doubt even the HealthLine made much of a difference.

 

I use "transit proximate" because it's agnostic as to the nebulous concept of "orientation." I don't really care if, say the Clinic's facilities were built to be oriented to transit, I care only if they are near and served by high quality transit. Not a big difference. Essentially synonymous, but focuses on the more relevant attribute in our setting.

 

Anyway, I don't mean to sound so negative. To me the implication is that we shouldn't push for expanding rail to areas that aren't already built up, and that we need to lean on zoning in some areas to prohibit some of the less intensive uses we would likely otherwise see near transit, even if it stunts development in the near term. This will be especially crucial in the Opportunity Corridor, for example. I know I'm preaching the choir.

^I have no doubt the property owner supported other people spending money to study and draw interest to their site. In fairness, I did hear at the time from an insider that the owner was indeed investigating redevelopment, but I've never seen any evidence they took any steps to advance the particular vision we all saw. I could be wrong, but I don't count this as a stalled project like some of the concrete, developer-driven proposals we've seen (e.g., Intessa, Brickman's Duck Island, everything Stark has ever hyped in the city).

 

^^We have a time disconnect. Like PHS, I'm focusing on recent and ongoing development trends, not things that happened 100 years ago, in a very different context. I agree with him that these days, transit seems fairly incidental, or at least to play only a small incremental role in market-rate projects. I don't think Uptown happened because of Red Line proximity, and I doubt even the HealthLine made much of a difference.

 

I use "transit proximate" because it's agnostic as to the nebulous concept of "orientation." I don't really care if, say the Clinic's facilities were built to be oriented to transit, I care only if they are near and served by high quality transit. Not a big difference. Essentially synonymous, but focuses on the more relevant attribute in our setting.

 

Anyway, I don't mean to sound so negative. To me the implication is that we shouldn't push for expanding rail to areas that aren't already built up, and that we need to lean on zoning in some areas to prohibit some of the less intensive uses we would likely otherwise see near transit, even if it stunts development in the near term. This will be especially crucial in the Opportunity Corridor, for example. I know I'm preaching the choir.

 

OK, points understood... I'm not sure Uptown happened, per se, because of the Red or Health Lines either, since development on that site had been studied and studied literally for decades.  But it is true that MRN likes to develop properties walkable to the Red Line.

I pretty much agree with PHS14 in all this. RTA just doesn't seem to be a major factor in the small number of new projects we've seen break ground. We still have lots of old transit-proximate housing, and much of the new stuff happens to be too, but due to demo and abandonment, the transit-proximate unit count has probably been dropping in recent years, not growing. Even the supposed boom at UC has been pretty tiny to this point if you go by unit count, though One UC, UC3, and Intessa could change that some.

 

 

 

I have no idea what your point is.  For one thing, you overlook Uptown (including MOCA), which includes a mixed-use project of 200 apartments (from smaller, dorm-types to $1,900/month units) over a seriously upgraded and expanded retail area -- all on top of what was 2 block-long surface parking lots north and south of Euclid Ave.  Uptown is the definition of TOD; not surprising, as KJP notes, that it merited the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy's "Silver" standard. 

 

But then I ask: what is your definition of Transit Oriented Development?  Little Italy is a tight, dense neighborhood -- perhaps Cleveland's densest per capita -- which began developing in the 1890s and was probably originally oriented to nearby streetcar routes.  Now the neighborhood has the UC/LI Red Line station sitting at its front door retail district, with the southern part of the area near the Cedar-University station.  Is LI not transit oriented?  (and btw, what is transit-proximate?  I've never heard this as a term of art).

 

Fact is, while Cleveland is far from perfect in terms of it's transit system's developing TOD, it's not as bad as you paint it especially when considered viz-a-viz similar-sized older cities in the Northeast and Rust Belt.  Compare Pittsburgh or Baltimore or St. Louis.  And yes, I do look at areas like Shaker Square, Tower City and the entire City of Shaker Heights as highly successful TODs generated by the Rapid system -- they just happen to be old, as are the Blue and Green Lines.  I'm not saying Cleveland couldn't be doing better -- and it should; not just an RTA initiative, but should be planned jointly between RTA and the City -- RTA can and should take a leading role, though.

 

Pretty sure this was never really a "project;" just a site planning vision commissioned by RTA and maybe OCI. As far as I know, it's never been clear the property owner is interested in redevelopment.

 

OK, I'd just as soon not get into a semantics pissing contest, but this was more than just a "vision."  It was a concrete proposal with a (below) detailed artist's rendering.  IIRC there were, at the time, both financing and retailer approval challenges, but it was given prominent play in the PD with considerable positive feedback.

 

http://www.dimitarchitects.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=154&Itemid=60

 

You consider Tower City a success?  Maybe now that Gilbert bought the place it can be reinvented and become a success.

You consider Tower City a success?  Maybe now that Gilbert bought the place it can be reinvented and become a success.

 

It was, at one time.

 

During the late 90s and early 2000s it was one of the nicest malls in the area.

No, I don't need anymore of your book referrals.  Sprawl goes on in many places; Cleveland's current problem is a lack of new infill residents.  The area is thinning out.

 

Then please stop offering opinions that weren't earned (including that one about a lack of infill residents).

 

Cleveland is a MSA. Akron is a MSA. Both are still part of the Clevleand-Akron CSA as is Canton now: http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/econ/ec2012/csa/EC2012_330M200US184M.pdf

 

You sure are high-maintenance. When am I up for tenure?

 

For years the Cleveland metro area population was close to 3 million.  In recent years, the Cleveland metro is sized at 2 million.  Where did the 1 million go?  I now the CSA is much larger but Cleveland is now heading to be the 3rd largest MSA in Ohio. 

 

As to infill, Clevleand is currently shuffling people around.  Maybe the core is seeing population growth but the metro has been shrinking.  Hope to see significant population gains in both the city and metro when the 2016 estimates are released tomorrow.

 

For years the Cleveland metro area population was close to 3 million.  In recent years, the Cleveland metro is sized at 2 million.  Where did the 1 million go?  I now the CSA is much larger but Cleveland is now heading to be the 3rd largest MSA in Ohio. 

 

 

Off Wikipedia:

 

Historical population

Census Pop. %±

1850 131,107 —

1860 161,687 23.3%

1870 212,535 31.4%

1880 284,499 33.9%

1890 403,731 41.9%

1900 552,359 36.8%

1910 774,657 40.2%

1920 1,103,877 42.5%

1930 1,397,426 26.6%

1940 1,432,124 2.5%

1950 1,680,736 17.4%

1960 2,126,983 26.6%

1970 2,321,037 9.1%

1980 2,173,734 −6.3%

1990 2,102,248 −3.3%

2000 2,148,143 2.2%

2010 2,077,240 −3.3%

You consider Tower City a success?  Maybe now that Gilbert bought the place it can be reinvented and become a success.

 

It was, at one time.

 

During the late 90s and early 2000s it was one of the nicest malls in the area.

 

Of course it worked, for a while.  Transit didn't save or in the end help Tower City.  It still is a nice looking mall as far as urban malls go and it is still open but it has fallen the past 10+ years.  This place has a lot of potential to be a great shopping mall given the uptick in population and visitors to downtown.  Looks like Cleveland may be getting over its ''rich people'' hang-up so perhaps high-end stores can come in again, but we shall see.

 

For years the Cleveland metro area population was close to 3 million.  I mean you never heard about Cincinnati being close to Cleveland's metro size and now it is larger.  In recent years, the Cleveland metro is sized at 2 million.  Where did the 1 million go?  I know the CSA is much larger but Cleveland is now heading to be the 3rd largest MSA in Ohio. 

 

Summit and Portage Counties were included in Cleveland's metro at one time.

 

Then Cleveland has been a rather rinky-dink, declining metro area since 1970.  Now, CIN has and COL is overtaking it.  It's pretty bad that the area hasn't been able to really turn itself around despite it being the comeback city in the 1980s and with today's latest version (although today's has a better chance since it involves people with paychecks moving in and the people without paychecks are being moved into the suburbs).  There's that Cleveland people shuffle again.

 

 

Off Wikipedia:

 

Historical population

Census Pop. %±

1850 131,107 —

1860 161,687 23.3%

1870 212,535 31.4%

1880 284,499 33.9%

1890 403,731 41.9%

1900 552,359 36.8%

1910 774,657 40.2%

1920 1,103,877 42.5%

1930 1,397,426 26.6%

1940 1,432,124 2.5%

1950 1,680,736 17.4%

1960 2,126,983 26.6%

1970 2,321,037 9.1%

1980 2,173,734 −6.3%

1990 2,102,248 −3.3%

2000 2,148,143 2.2%

2010 2,077,240 −3.3%

 

Yes, the current 5 county region.  Trust me, Cleveland-Akron were considered one for many years (2.9 million).

y

^^We have a time disconnect. Like PHS, I'm focusing on recent and ongoing development trends, not things that happened 100 years ago, in a very different context. I agree with him that these days, transit seems fairly incidental, or at least to play only a small incremental role in market-rate projects. I don't think Uptown happened because of Red Line proximity, and I doubt even the HealthLine made much of a difference.

 

Mine "100 years" of history is to show why something is the way it is today. Every public policy, program, tax, regulation, budget, and even personal behavior is based on what has come before. And when you read through the history, you realize just how tenuous everything is, and how susceptible to change we really are. Just the tiniest of policy amendments have major repercussions on people's person behaviors. In the end, we are all sheep.

 

Of course it worked, for a while.  Transit didn't save or in the end help Tower City.  It still is a nice looking mall as far as urban malls go and it is still open but it has fallen the past 10+ years.  This place has a lot of potential to be a great shopping mall given the uptick in population and visitors to downtown.  Looks like Cleveland may be getting over its ''rich people'' hang-up so perhaps high-end stores can come in again, but we shall see.

 

Get rid of transit at Tower City and it would die. There's 30,000 people getting on/off trains there everyday, plus another 45,000 getting on/off buses on Public Square daily. Individuals may not have the loot the support a Fendi or Bally's, but their collective purchasing power is far greater than many suburban malls that have since died or transitioned into strip/"power" centers.

 

I once did an analysis of why so many grocery stores and banks were located along the entire West 117th Street. The reason is the collective purchasing power of residents living near that retail corridor...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/sunpostherald/index.ssf/2012/12/clevelands_west_117th_street_h.html

 

Not only is West 117th accessible to a wide range of customers from a large area, its immediate neighbors also have lots of money to spend. But how can an area that’s not wealthy have money?

 

“There is money in the neighborhood because there’s lots of population in the neighborhood,” said Chad Dasher, executive director of the Westown Community Development Corp. “Look at the number of the banks to determine the spending power of a neighborhood. Just about all the banks are here. Banks won’t set up shop in a neighborhood if there wasn’t any money here.”

 

That bold statement is backed up by population and per capita income data collected for the 2010 Census and the 2007 American Community Survey.

 

Neighborhoods in Cleveland and Lakewood that are within two miles of West 117th have a high population density — about 95,000 residents. The per capita annual income in those areas is about $27,000.

 

That means the neighborhoods within two miles of West 117th have approximately $2.57 billion in annual purchasing power.

 

That’s nearly double the $1.37 billion of annual purchasing power of affluent Westlake, where its 32,700 residents have a per capita income of almost $42,000, according to Census and ACS data.

____

 

Sure, there's no luxury retailers along West 117th. But there are many everyday retailers with a high utility. A similar situation exists with Tower City Center. The volume of transit riders aggregates otherwise small individual disposable incomes into a collective purchasing power to be reckoned with.

You consider Tower City a success?  Maybe now that Gilbert bought the place it can be reinvented and become a success.

 

Answer: yes. 

 

I take the long view.  Has TC struggled with retail to a degree, esp in losing it's high-end retail since it opened in 1990?  Sure it has.  But retail has struggled downtown in a lot of cities, not just Cleveland.  Pittsburgh recently shuddered it's Macy's.  Philadelphia, whose Metro area's twice Cleveland's, is down to just Macy's as its lone major department store (there is a junky Burlington Coat Factory, a Century 21 and a small Marshall's in Center City, but come on-- Philly does have some high-end specialty stores along Walnut Street).  Even titanic Chicago has taken retail hits downtown, including losing it's beloved Carson Pirie Scott department store in 2007.  So downtown Cleveland's not alone in its retail struggles, although I would like to see us do better.

 

But it's undeniable that Tower City is a model for cities around the globe as a mixed-use, inter-connected group of hotels, office buildings and retail directly connected to an underground rail transit station.  And even though the Vans old Union Terminal Group was pioneering for it's day (only New York's Rockefeller Center, opened 2 years after Terminal Tower in 1932, matched the Terminal Group for its size and air-rights/mixed-use innovation), Tower City's 1989/90 revamp represented a significant leap forward on the original concept: the empty, deteriorating train station waiting room was expanded into a (still) beautiful, multi-tier urban shopping mall; an upscale Ritz-Carlton Hotel was built along with the Skylight office building.  Other substantial office buildings were added over the years, including the Lausche State Office (1979) and the 23-story Stokes Federal Courthouse -- not to mention the fact that the RTA walkway to TC and the Rapid helped spawn the Gateway sports complex with both The Q and Progressive field: a model for downtown sports stadium grouping... TC's unique and convenient development at the center of town was influential in landing this summer's RNC.

 

... and yes, despite whether one loves the Horseshoe-turned-J*A*C*K casino, I much prefer it, and the constant activity it draws, to the desolate, near-empty Higbee Dept. Store building.

 

So despite the ebbs and flows Tower City has had over the years, overall I can't consider it anything but an unqualified success and one of Cleveland's gems; ... along with being a pretty cool TOD on top of that.

 

You consider Tower City a success?  Maybe now that Gilbert bought the place it can be reinvented and become a success.

 

Answer: yes. 

 

I take the long view.  Has TC struggled with retail to a degree, esp in losing it's high-end retail since it opened in 1990?  Sure it has.  But retail has struggled downtown in a lot of cities, not just Cleveland.  Pittsburgh recently shuddered it's Macy's.  Philadelphia, whose Metro area's twice Cleveland's, is down to just Macy's as its lone major department store (there is a junky Burlington Coat Factory, a Century 21 and a small Marshall's in Center City, but come on-- Philly does have some high-end specialty stores along Walnut Street).  Even titanic Chicago has taken retail hits downtown, including losing it's beloved Carson Pirie Scott department store in 2007.  So downtown Cleveland's not alone in its retail struggles, although I would like to see us do better.

 

But it's undeniable that Tower City is a model for cities around the globe as a mixed-use, inter-connected group of hotels, office buildings and retail directly connected to an underground rail transit station.  And even though the Vans old Union Terminal Group was pioneering for it's day (only New York's Rockefeller Center, opened 2 years after Terminal Tower in 1932, matched the Terminal Group for its size and air-rights/mixed-use innovation), Tower City's 1989/90 revamp represented a significant leap forward on the original concept: the empty, deteriorating train station waiting room was expanded into a (still) beautiful, multi-tier urban shopping mall; an upscale Ritz-Carlton Hotel was built along with the Skylight office building.  Other substantial office buildings were added over the years, including the Lausche State Office (1979) and the 23-story Stokes Federal Courthouse -- not to mention the fact that the RTA walkway to TC and the Rapid helped spawn the Gateway sports complex with both The Q and Progressive field: a model for downtown sports stadium grouping... TC's unique and convenient development at the center of town was influential in landing this summer's RNC.

 

... and yes, despite whether one loves the Horseshoe-turned-J*A*C*K casino, I much prefer it, and the constant activity it draws, to the desolate, near-empty Higbee Dept. Store building.

 

So despite the ebbs and flows Tower City has had over the years, overall I can't consider it anything but an unqualified success and one of Cleveland's gems; ... along with being a pretty cool TOD on top of that.

 

You may be the only person considering Tower City a success, esp given its hoopla beginning.  Forest City didn't consider it a success. But yes, the long-view may be in order here given that Gilbert has purchased The Avenue. 

 

The idea that the tunnel to Gateway helped spur the stadiums is misplaced; the tunnel came as an after thought.  I always thought, and especially now, that a separate station should be developed for Gateway/E 4th Street.

 

Thus far however, there has only been ''a flow'' and ''an ebb'' with Tower City; not ''flows and ebbs''.  Gilbert should be able to create a ''flow'' again.

 

Also, I wouldn't use Chicago or Philly's downtown retail scenes in comparison to Cleveland's; the former have retail scenes, the latter doesn't.

^^We have a time disconnect. Like PHS, I'm focusing on recent and ongoing development trends, not things that happened 100 years ago, in a very different context. I agree with him that these days, transit seems fairly incidental, or at least to play only a small incremental role in market-rate projects. I don't think Uptown happened because of Red Line proximity, and I doubt even the HealthLine made much of a difference.

 

Mine "100 years" of history is to show why something is the way it is today. Every public policy, program, tax, regulation, budget, and even personal behavior is based on what has come before. And when you read through the history, you realize just how tenuous everything is, and how susceptible to change we really are. Just the tiniest of policy amendments have major repercussions on people's person behaviors. In the end, we are all sheep.

 

Of course it worked, for a while.  Transit didn't save or in the end help Tower City.  It still is a nice looking mall as far as urban malls go and it is still open but it has fallen the past 10+ years.  This place has a lot of potential to be a great shopping mall given the uptick in population and visitors to downtown.  Looks like Cleveland may be getting over its ''rich people'' hang-up so perhaps high-end stores can come in again, but we shall see.

 

Get rid of transit at Tower City and it would die. There's 30,000 people getting on/off trains there everyday, plus another 45,000 getting on/off buses on Public Square daily. Individuals may not have the loot the support a Fendi or Bally's, but their collective purchasing power is far greater than many suburban malls that have since died or transitioned into strip/"power" centers.

 

I once did an analysis of why so many grocery stores and banks were located along the entire West 117th Street. The reason is the collective purchasing power of residents living near that retail corridor...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/sunpostherald/index.ssf/2012/12/clevelands_west_117th_street_h.html

 

Not only is West 117th accessible to a wide range of customers from a large area, its immediate neighbors also have lots of money to spend. But how can an area that’s not wealthy have money?

 

“There is money in the neighborhood because there’s lots of population in the neighborhood,” said Chad Dasher, executive director of the Westown Community Development Corp. “Look at the number of the banks to determine the spending power of a neighborhood. Just about all the banks are here. Banks won’t set up shop in a neighborhood if there wasn’t any money here.”

 

That bold statement is backed up by population and per capita income data collected for the 2010 Census and the 2007 American Community Survey.

 

Neighborhoods in Cleveland and Lakewood that are within two miles of West 117th have a high population density — about 95,000 residents. The per capita annual income in those areas is about $27,000.

 

That means the neighborhoods within two miles of West 117th have approximately $2.57 billion in annual purchasing power.

 

That’s nearly double the $1.37 billion of annual purchasing power of affluent Westlake, where its 32,700 residents have a per capita income of almost $42,000, according to Census and ACS data.

____

 

Sure, there's no luxury retailers along West 117th. But there are many everyday retailers with a high utility. A similar situation exists with Tower City Center. The volume of transit riders aggregates otherwise small individual disposable incomes into a collective purchasing power to be reckoned with.

 

Cleveland needs a good retail mix: high, middle and low.  It also needs a good population mix.  Let's see what Gilbert's plans for The Avenue are but if the idea is to cater to the built-in transit riders, then nothing will change.  Why bother?

 

The idea that the tunnel to Gateway helped spur the stadiums is misplaced; the tunnel came as an after thought.  I always thought, and especially now, that a separate station should be developed for Gateway/E 4th Street.

 

I'll have to check on this when I have more time... My recollection, though, was although the walkway-to-Gateway was a selling point for Gateway package which, of course, was then sold to the voters, even if it wasn't THE selling point.  I do know that enticing the Gund Brothers to move the Cavs back into downtown from their happy perch out in Richfield, may have been what ultimately convinced County voters to pass the sin tax to finance Gateway.

 

The idea that the tunnel to Gateway helped spur the stadiums is misplaced; the tunnel came as an after thought.  I always thought, and especially now, that a separate station should be developed for Gateway/E 4th Street.

 

I'll have to check on this when I have more time... My recollection, though, was although the walkway-to-Gateway was a selling point for Gateway package which, of course, was then sold to the voters, even if it wasn't THE selling point.  I do know that enticing the Gund Brothers to move the Cavs back into downtown from their happy perch out in Richfield, may have been what ultimately convinced County voters to pass the sin tax to finance Gateway.

 

My recollection is that there was no Gateway walkway as part of the original plan.  Not that this is a big deal.  I recall it being a separate RTA project announced after the sin tax and Gateway was a go; an add-on perk paid for by RTA.  At the time I wanted a separate Gateway rail station and as the project got underway the rail connection was announced:  RTA's tunnel to Gateway.  Either way, a connection was needed but I don't think it was paid for with sin tax money.

 

Moving the Cavs back was always part of an overall new stadium plan in the 1980s.  Remember the dome stadium idea that had several potential locations, including the Warehouse District, and a voter-defeated financing plan in mid-'80s?  The Cavs were supposed to be included in this deal as well. 

 

It ended up being Gateway in its present location, the old Central Market district, as an open air baseball stadium and arena.  No football stadium.  We all know what happened later on that topic.

I was only 9 or 10 when TC opened, and was curious what the rapid station was like prior to that.  Was it rebuilt as part of the tower city development?  I always thought TC station went wrong when they never designed street level access to the station.  I always thought it should be able to be accessed from Huron, Prospect and Ontario streets.  Getting there from street level is a little strange, and being that it is the only downtown station on the red line, it almost seems dedicated to just the tower city complex.  I think it should be called the Ontario/Prospect station, with direct access from the street making it inviting to E 4th patrons/residents,  WHD patrons/residents, and especially tourists and business travelers.  IMHO, a lot of way finding signage should not be necessary for a properly planned transit station.

I was only 9 or 10 when TC opened, and was curious what the rapid station was like prior to that.  Was it rebuilt as part of the tower city development?

 

Yes.

 

Edit: I've posted pictures of the Rapid stations (yes, plural) here on UO.

I was only 9 or 10 when TC opened, and was curious what the rapid station was like prior to that.  Was it rebuilt as part of the tower city development?  I always thought TC station went wrong when they never designed street level access to the station.  I always thought it should be able to be accessed from Huron, Prospect and Ontario streets.  Getting there from street level is a little strange, and being that it is the only downtown station on the red line, it almost seems dedicated to just the tower city complex.  I think it should be called the Ontario/Prospect station, with direct access from the street making it inviting to E 4th patrons/residents,  WHD patrons/residents, and especially tourists and business travelers.  IMHO, a lot of way finding signage should not be necessary for a properly planned transit station.

 

Yep, direct street access which is why I thought the same thing on Huron/Prospect and Ontario Streets. I've stated I thought Gateway should have had its own separate station, especially now with the entertainment and residential development.  Say street access at E 4th/Huron.

 

An access portal from the redesigned Public Square, like the ones in Philadelphia's Dilworth Park rehab adjacent to City Hall.  Not enough money for this, of course, though. 

 

The Tower City Station is in an awkward location, especially as being the hub and only real downtown station.

I was only 9 or 10 when TC opened, and was curious what the rapid station was like prior to that.  Was it rebuilt as part of the tower city development?  I always thought TC station went wrong when they never designed street level access to the station.  I always thought it should be able to be accessed from Huron, Prospect and Ontario streets.  Getting there from street level is a little strange, and being that it is the only downtown station on the red line, it almost seems dedicated to just the tower city complex.  I think it should be called the Ontario/Prospect station, with direct access from the street making it inviting to E 4th patrons/residents,  WHD patrons/residents, and especially tourists and business travelers.  IMHO, a lot of way finding signage should not be necessary for a properly planned transit station.

 

Yep, direct street access which is why I thought the same thing on Huron/Prospect and Ontario Streets. I've stated I thought Gateway should have had its own separate station, especially now with the entertainment and residential development.  Say street access at E 4th/Huron.

 

An access portal from the redesigned Public Square, like the ones in Philadelphia's Dilworth Park rehab adjacent to City Hall.  Not enough money for this, of course, though. 

 

The Tower City Station is in an awkward location, especially as being the hub and only real downtown station.

 

I would say it should be called "Tower City" because that's where it is and the precise location is rather visible downtown because of the tower.

 

Separate access from the street is a different matter.  Ironically, John Gorman was just posting on Facebook about ways to help the mall and separating out the station was one of his ideas.  I'm not sure it would make a difference though.

 

You might be able to put a light rail stop at Gateway, but it's too close for heavy.

 

For years the Cleveland metro area population was close to 3 million.  I mean you never heard about Cincinnati being close to Cleveland's metro size and now it is larger.  In recent years, the Cleveland metro is sized at 2 million.  Where did the 1 million go?  I know the CSA is much larger but Cleveland is now heading to be the 3rd largest MSA in Ohio. 

 

Summit and Portage Counties were included in Cleveland's metro at one time.

 

Then Cleveland has been a rather rinky-dink, declining metro area since 1970.  Now, CIN has and COL is overtaking it.  It's pretty bad that the area hasn't been able to really turn itself around despite it being the comeback city in the 1980s and with today's latest version (although today's has a better chance since it involves people with paychecks moving in and the people without paychecks are being moved into the suburbs).  There's that Cleveland people shuffle again.

 

 

Off Wikipedia:

 

Historical population

Census Pop. %±

1850 131,107 —

1860 161,687 23.3%

1870 212,535 31.4%

1880 284,499 33.9%

1890 403,731 41.9%

1900 552,359 36.8%

1910 774,657 40.2%

1920 1,103,877 42.5%

1930 1,397,426 26.6%

1940 1,432,124 2.5%

1950 1,680,736 17.4%

1960 2,126,983 26.6%

1970 2,321,037 9.1%

1980 2,173,734 −6.3%

1990 2,102,248 −3.3%

2000 2,148,143 2.2%

2010 2,077,240 −3.3%

 

Yes, the current 5 county region.  Trust me, Cleveland-Akron were considered one for many years (2.9 million).

y

 

You're confusing me here.  You're questioning where 1 million people went, then saying it's something new that Akron is separate.

 

The Akron MSA has census numbers going back to 1900.

Erocc, I'm not saying separating the station would help the mall, I'm saying it would help ridership, and make the area around the mall even more desirable because of street level rail access.  My point above is that the station is way too tucked away, and difficult to find/get to, and for all intensive purposes the only downtown station.  Think of it this way, if Cleveland had zero rail, and was looking for recommendations as to where to put 1 station in the city, would you put it under tower city with no access to the street whatsoever?  Probably not.  Location is not central to the city, nor is it easy to find for anyone.  Sure,  I understand why the location given the rail lines present, and TC being a central terminal, however the access was just not planned well.  In my perfect world, there should be a small entrance housed in a shelter on prospect that goes down to the station.  The shelter could sell small food items, magazines, tobacco, newspapers, etc.  the station would be visible, as would the people, and would make it a more cohesive way to travel through the city...if that makes sense.

Erocc, I'm not saying separating the station would help the mall, I'm saying it would help ridership, and make the area around the mall even more desirable because of street level rail access.  My point above is that the station is way too tucked away, and difficult to find/get to, and for all intensive purposes the only downtown station.  Think of it this way, if Cleveland had zero rail, and was looking for recommendations as to where to put 1 station in the city, would you put it under tower city with no access to the street whatsoever?  Probably not.  Location is not central to the city, nor is it easy to find for anyone.  Sure,  I understand why the location given the rail lines present, and TC being a central terminal, however the access was just not planned well.  In my perfect world, there should be a small entrance housed in a shelter on prospect that goes down to the station.  The shelter could sell small food items, magazines, tobacco, newspapers, etc.  the station would be visible, as would the people, and would make it a more cohesive way to travel through the city...if that makes sense.

 

That's kind of how it was before Tower City was built, there were a few small shops and the station dominated the lower levels.  A direct entrance makes sense to be sure.

Erocc, I'm not saying separating the station would help the mall, I'm saying it would help ridership, and make the area around the mall even more desirable because of street level rail access.  My point above is that the station is way too tucked away, and difficult to find/get to, and for all intensive purposes the only downtown station.  Think of it this way, if Cleveland had zero rail, and was looking for recommendations as to where to put 1 station in the city, would you put it under tower city with no access to the street whatsoever?  Probably not.  Location is not central to the city, nor is it easy to find for anyone.  Sure,  I understand why the location given the rail lines present, and TC being a central terminal, however the access was just not planned well.  In my perfect world, there should be a small entrance housed in a shelter on prospect that goes down to the station.  The shelter could sell small food items, magazines, tobacco, newspapers, etc.  the station would be visible, as would the people, and would make it a more cohesive way to travel through the city...if that makes sense.

 

If you access the station via the Tower City entrance on the south side of Prospect, it is much more direct. You either take the escalators down, or take the elevator directly to the station level. There are stations in the DC Metro that take longer to get to the platform from the surface than it does from Prospect to the RTA rapid platform.

^In fact, it's that entrance that google maps will direct you to by default when you ask for directions to Tower City. Which is actually kind of annoying, because it makes walking distances to the station from points north of Public Square appear longer than they really are.  I just noticed is does the same thing with Key Tower- recognizing only the St. Clair entry to the Marriott.  So if you ask for walking instructions from Key Tower to Tower City, googlemaps tells you it takes 12 minutes (!): http://bit.ly/1MEeBr7

Erocc, I'm not saying separating the station would help the mall, I'm saying it would help ridership, and make the area around the mall even more desirable because of street level rail access.  My point above is that the station is way too tucked away, and difficult to find/get to, and for all intensive purposes the only downtown station.  Think of it this way, if Cleveland had zero rail, and was looking for recommendations as to where to put 1 station in the city, would you put it under tower city with no access to the street whatsoever?  Probably not.  Location is not central to the city, nor is it easy to find for anyone.  Sure,  I understand why the location given the rail lines present, and TC being a central terminal, however the access was just not planned well.  In my perfect world, there should be a small entrance housed in a shelter on prospect that goes down to the station.  The shelter could sell small food items, magazines, tobacco, newspapers, etc.  the station would be visible, as would the people, and would make it a more cohesive way to travel through the city...if that makes sense.

 

If you access the station via the Tower City entrance on the south side of Prospect, it is much more direct. You either take the escalators down, or take the elevator directly to the station level. There are stations in the DC Metro that take longer to get to the platform from the surface than it does from Prospect to the RTA rapid platform.

 

You're correct; the Rapid station is directly under Prospect.  The long escalators from behind Tower City's beautiful front portico, reflect that Public Sq is actually a half-block distant from the station location (and that, actually, the Public Sq entrance is slightly sunken so that, if you walk straight back from that entrance, you actually walk under Prospect Av-- if you ever notice, when you walk toward the PS entrance from Ontario or Superior, you're walking down into a bowl).  Many Clevelanders think you have to access the Rapid from the main entrance and Public Square, but the Tower City/Prospect entrances are supposed to be open (and the escalators operational) during the hours the Rapid is in operation.  The passengers have an easement over TC's private property to access RTA's public transit station. There is usually TC security and/or Cleveland cops to make sure passengers keep moving and don't loiter or linger around storefronts, etc.  There's also an entrance on Huron, next to the Hard Rock, but I'm not sure this rule applies. 

 

Signage indicating that the entrances access the Rapid are non-existent, and that's probably for a reason.  It is likely to change for the RNC -- I wouldn't be surprised if such signage is temporary, and we return to business as usual after the convention.

^ I've heard that Forest City was not exactly supportive of adding more signage around Tower City for the rapid station.

^ I've heard that Forest City was not exactly supportive of adding more signage around Tower City for the rapid station.

 

In the early 90s there were plenty of signs. There was an even an RTA store with transit-related merchandise at the corner of Prospect at West 3rd.

^ I've heard that Forest City was not exactly supportive of adding more signage around Tower City for the rapid station.

 

In the early 90s there were plenty of signs. There was an even an RTA store with transit-related merchandise at the corner of Prospect at West 3rd.

 

What?! How did my parents never bring me there when I was young?? Are there any pictures of that?

I believe it was called the "Bust Stop Shop." I remember it being more like a snack bar/convenience store.

I believe it was called the "Bust Stop Shop." I remember it being more like a snack bar/convenience store.

 

That's it. Bus Stop Shop. it also had RTA coffee mugs, t-shirts and other promo merchandise.

I believe it was called the "Bust Stop Shop." I remember it being more like a snack bar/convenience store.

 

That's it. Bus Stop Shop. it also had RTA coffee mugs, t-shirts and other promo merchandise.

 

It featured a cashier sitting on the floor, so you had to get down on your knees to buy your RTA coffee mug....  :-D

The Menlo Park Academy's plan to repurpose the old Joseph and Feiss factory on W. 53rd Street will put them tantalizingly close to the woefully underused W 65th Rapid Station - a little too far for their younger students, but close enough for the 6th, 7th, and 8th graders to walk. 

The Menlo Park Academy's plan to repurpose the old Joseph and Feiss factory on W. 53rd Street will put them tantalizingly close to the woefully underused W 65th Rapid Station - a little too far for their younger students, but close enough for the 6th, 7th, and 8th graders to walk. 

 

True, but I don't see West 65th as "woefully" underutilized anymore. Before it was renovated, it definitely fell into that woefully category. Goes to show that even a station located in a pit with nothing around it to generate ridership can be rebuilt to feel more secure and the neighborhood can be rebuilt to generate some riders.

The Menlo Park Academy's plan to repurpose the old Joseph and Feiss factory on W. 53rd Street will put them tantalizingly close to the woefully underused W 65th Rapid Station - a little too far for their younger students, but close enough for the 6th, 7th, and 8th graders to walk. 

 

True, but I don't see West 65th as "woefully" underutilized anymore. Before it was renovated, it definitely fell into that woefully category. Goes to show that even a station located in a pit with nothing around it to generate ridership can be rebuilt to feel more secure and the neighborhood can be rebuilt to generate some riders.

 

I know it was a ghost stop before the renovation, but what are the user numbers today?

I don't know them off-hand. Just going by the numbers of people I see getting on/off trains now vs. the ride-by's of years past. If no one requested a stop and no one was seen on the platform, trains would slow but not stop. I used to remark sometimes "wow, we're actually stopping at 65th!"

^I've noticed on my Red Line trips back n' forth to the airport in recent years, that there appears to be a good deal of rider traffic at W. 65th.  Having driven around that area, especially in route to the Gordon Square area over the last couple years, it appears the neighborhood, though still rough around the edges, has improved markedly since the time that station was rebuilt in the early 2000s.  And while the short stretch of "Eco Village" townhouses on W. 58th are nice, I've been very sorely disappointed in the lack of any other TOD built since, unless one loosely considers the Waverly Station townhomes a few blocks north TOD built a few years ago. 

Apologies for "woefully underused", but that's how it looks to me on airport-downtown trips. Passenger counts coming and going always seem to be single-digit numbers.