Second, given that it appears this stubby Blue Line extension seems in the cards, how much are behind-the-scenes powers really looking at the relatively cheap, extremely worthwhile extension of the Rapid to Harvard Park shopping center in Chagrin Highlands?   I know UOers have speculated about it, but is it really on the radar of our local leaders (and RTA) and can it be? ... There's already lots of projects built and going up in this corridor, plus the Blue Line could have a stop at the front door of the popular Tri-C East campus.

 

Harvard Park is a pretty grotesque shopping center, but you're right, it would be great for the region to get the Tri-C Eastern Campus connected to the rail system.  But look around at everything built in the area and it's so auto-oriented; I don't know if the whole Chagrin Highlands concept ever considered or would even be open to TOD-like planning.

^Considering the new University Hospitals building (currently under construction) has a setback that's about a fifth of a mile from Harvard Road, and a parking area that dwarfs the site of the actual building, I'm gonna guess that the answer to that is a big fat "h#ll to the naw!".

 

 

 

From the University Hospitals site:

"...its design will be a prominent addition to the landscape, while having a minimal impact on the environment as an eco-friendly facility."

 

This Monday morning, I'll be down at City Hall to look at a plan for the W117th Street Corridor.  This plan is the result of two years of community engagement and mtgs of planners, stakeholders, etc from the Cities of Lakewood and Cleveland.

 

My primary interest in the plan is to see that the land around the Redline station at W117&Madison is used to realize a TOD development. 

 

If anyone with TOD planning experience/interest is interested in attending this 30-45 min mtg with me on Mon, Feb 2, please PM me as I would appreciate outside opinions in order that I can best  determine if another meeting with stakeholders & decision-makers is necessary.

 

THANKS!

Shaker Square: a nat'l treasure?

 

Letter-to-the-Editor, today's Philadelphia Inquirer-- it was reacting to on an extensive Inky article last week on SEPTA El's 69th St terminal just across the Philly border in Upper Darby, it's history and present problems; I'll post it when I get a hold of it.

 

Letters: 69th Street could learn from Cleveland

There is no reason to consign the 69th Street business district to oblivion ("Community's unending struggle to stay vital," Tuesday). On the boundary of Cleveland and Shaker Heights, Ohio, is Shaker Square, a thriving town center built between 1927 and 1929. Like 69th Street in Upper Darby, Shaker Square was built at the junction of rail transit lines, and is now a desirable place to live among young professionals.

A major focus of contemporary urban planning is the concept of Transit-Oriented Development, which supports a walkable community with access to higher-quality public transportation as an alternative to so many cars. Shaker Square and 69th Street were built as TODs in their era, and they remain the antithesis of suburban sprawl today.

 

Upper Darby doesn't need to reinvent the wheel; it just needs to fix the wheel.

 

William A. Ritzler

 

Pitman

 

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090405_Letters__69th_Street_could_learn_from_Cleveland.html

Here is a link to the RTA's "Master Plan" for the E120th red line station relocation and TOD area.

 

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/e120.asp

 

As a Case student and resident of the area, I'm really quite disappointed at the extravagant nature of this plan.  A large part of the draw to this neighborhood is the "frozen in time" character of an old city - especially Cleveland Heights and to a lesser extent Little Italy.  The newer, "modern" UH-related concrete developments on the west side of the bridge are an absolute eyesore comparably.

 

There is already a stairway built into the Mayfield bridge from the Van Swerigan-era rail development.  Why can't the RTA just renovate the stairway and build a simple covered platform on top of the bridge? 

 

I'm sure that when it was built, the E. 120th red line station was gorgeous, but the surrounding area absolutely killed it (if you are on Case campus and really, really want to get mugged - just use the Rapid a few times.)  The moral of the story is that a Taj-Mahal station will not alter people's preferences to use transit.  It's the presence of other people, not art exhibitions or spans of shiny chrome and plate glass, that will encourage people that it's safe to use the Red Line. 

 

Jesus, RTA, all I want is a stairway! I don't care if I have to walk through mud to get there, as long as I don't get mugged.  :-D

 

Here is a link to the RTA's "Master Plan" for the E120th red line station relocation and TOD area.

 

http://www.riderta.com/majorprojects/e120.asp

 

As a Case student and resident of the area, I'm really quite disappointed at the extravagant nature of this plan.  A large part of the draw to this neighborhood is the "frozen in time" character of an old city - especially Cleveland Heights and to a lesser extent Little Italy.  The newer, "modern" UH-related concrete developments on the west side of the bridge are an absolute eyesore comparably.

 

There is already a stairway built into the Mayfield bridge from the Van Swerigan-era rail development.  Why can't the RTA just renovate the stairway and build a simple covered platform on top of the bridge? 

 

I'm sure that when it was built, the E. 120th red line station was gorgeous, but the surrounding area absolutely killed it (if you are on Case campus and really, really want to get mugged - just use the Rapid a few times.)  The moral of the story is that a Taj-Mahal station will not alter people's preferences to use transit.  It's the presence of other people, not art exhibitions or spans of shiny chrome and plate glass, that will encourage people that it's safe to use the Red Line. 

 

Jesus, RTA, all I want is a stairway! I don't care if I have to walk through mud to get there, as long as I don't get mugged.  ;D

 

 

I hope the "mugging" comment was sarcasm.

It wasn't; I speak from personal experience.  The E. 120th-Euclid bridge is a fairly desolate and dangerous area, especially after dark. 

Of course, it was a bit of a hyperbole.  :-D  But the aversion of Case students to Red Line use is not altogether unfounded...the station sees less than 70 passengers a day, IIRC.

It wasn't; I speak from personal experience.  The E. 120th-Euclid bridge is a fairly desolate and dangerous area, especially after dark. The aversion of Case students to Red Line use is not altogether unfounded.

 

So your experience is representative of all Cast students?

 

 

So every Case Student is affraid of that particular station?  It's not the best station or located in the best location, to be of use to University Circle students, workers or residents.  Moving it will tie the station into the community. 

 

Don't case students, workers and resident use the University Circle Station?  Are they all afraid?  You initial post, comes across as the rail line itself is unsafe.

 

The moral of the story is not to post statements as the gospel!

Most Case students I know (myself included) have no problem with the Red Line itself.  The E. 120th station currently leaves much to be desired because it is isolated, and people to go out of their way to pick up the rapid at the UC/Cedar stop.

I didn't mean to be antagonistic about this, I just wanted to give my views on the situation.  My opinion comes from the viewpoint of someone who lived on the north side of campus for three years, where it's relatively much more difficult to use the University station. 

I'm not objecting to moving the E120th station, I just think they can do it with a much simpler plan.  I'm sorry. 

I didn't mean to be antagonistic about this, I just wanted to give my views on the situation.  My opinion comes from the viewpoint of someone who lived on the north side of campus for three years, where it's relatively much more difficult to use the University station. 

I'm not objecting to moving the E120th station, I just think they can do it with a much simpler plan.  I'm sorry. 

 

Thats fine and dandy, and I get that, however, the "if you are on Case campus and really, really want to get mugged - just use the Rapid a few times" was totally off base.  Do you really believe you'll be mugged if you use the rapid or your life is in danger if you take the Rapid?

 

Hopefully, living in the area, you're committed to helping improve the areas - real and perceived - image.  How is making a statement like your previous statement going to help change:  a) the perception of transportation in Cleveland b) the perception of the neighborhood (as you're only a good as your worst area) where the station is located c) further development and reception of  TOD in Cleveland?

 

How do you think the station relocation can be simplified?

MTS, it's time to load up on the decaf; ccars was just expressing his opinion that the E120th station is unsafe, and backed it up with personal experiences that were backed up by the Good Doctor.  Maybe there was some hyperbole, which I am sure you can recognize, Mr. "Ain't nothin' in Ohio south of the Turnpike".

 

ccars, don't mind MTS.  He likes to bite newbies.

 

(EDIT: I didn't say that he only liked to bite newbies.)

I didn't mean to be antagonistic about this, I just wanted to give my views on the situation. My opinion comes from the viewpoint of someone who lived on the north side of campus for three years, where it's relatively much more difficult to use the University station.

I'm not objecting to moving the E120th station, I just think they can do it with a much simpler plan. I'm sorry.

 

Were you actually mugged, ccars?

He likes to bite newbies.

 

Then there are a LOT of newbies on here.

MTS, it's time to load up on the decaf; ccars was just expressing his opinion that the E120th station is unsafe, and backed it up with personal experiences that were backed up by the Good Doctor. Maybe there was some hyperbole, which I am sure you can recognize, Mr. "Ain't nothin' in Ohio south of the Turnpike".

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Avogadro.  I really didn't want to get into an Internet shouting match on my third post on this forum. :)

 

Anyway, you're exactly right.  I didn't mean to make my post all about Case students -- in fact, most of them don't have any reason whatsoever for going downtown except to drink (but the Red Line closes at midnight - don't get me started on that one!).  The only reason I mentioned being a Case student was because yes, indeed I was mugged once underneath the E. 120th street bridge, and as others said, people in this area will deliberately avoid using the E. 120th station, turning it into a veritable black hole of funding.  As for Case, this point is made a bit moot by the opening of the HealthLine, since it is in fact more convenient to catch the (nice) bus on Euclid/Mayfield.

 

I live in Coventry now, and I'd like to say that it would be quite nice to walk down to Little Italy and catch the Rapid when I do need to go elsewhere in the city.  So yes, I'm very excited about the plans to move the station to Mayfield.  The concern I have is that the plan they promulgated seems over-the-top.  It seems so ambitious that, as with so many other plans in Cleveland, it might not happen at all.  I think moving the station should be of paramount importance.

So, here are some questions I have that I hope will incite debate on this:

1. Is the "Master Plan" the final RTA proposal for moving the station?

2. Have there been other proposals suggested?

3. How does this plan interfere with the planned Mayfield condominiums on the east side of E. 119th in Little Italy - there have been large advertising signs posted on that property for some time now.

This might have done better to be a separate post, since I'm less concerned with the overall TOD plan than simply moving the station first.  I figure though since we've already seen a TOD plan for the E120/Mayfield station, that I would be able to get some more information on this topic.

 

IMO, I'd like to see a less obtrusive RTA station (put up big signs if you want, but keep the station simple) and a separate execution of the TOD plan for E. 119th. 

Ccars, keep posting.  I also do not use that station bc of its isolation.  I am sure you and the good Dr. have a better understanding of the prevailing beliefs of most Case students than those of us who A) do not go to school there; or B) do not live in the area.

 

So post away. 

Hmm. I just noticed that the plan on the GCRTA website claims the project will be done "in 2008."  I'm now assuming that the accompanying PDF document is not even close to RTA's plan.

 

So...does anyone know _anything_ about what is going on with the station move?  There has been no activity in the area besides a bridge repaint and a few guys looking at the boarded-up old Van Sweringan stairwell in the bridge a few weeks ago.  I'm just curious if anyone had any news.  The last I heard was that they were going to break ground sometime in the fall of 2009.

 

Case administrators mentioned building the station somewhere between Mayfield and E. 120th to coincide with a different "Master Plan" involving complete redevelopment of the area.  Barring any stimulus funding, I think launching into grand master plans involving building entire neighborhoods on top of parking lots may be an unwise solution.  Little Italy is already an incubator for urban pedestrian life; all they really need to do right now, IMO, is to move the transit stop there in order to facilitate more TOD.

Ask that question here:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4504.4140.html

according to people at RTA they are only I believe about 20-25% of the way through design.  And they are working with UCI who owns the parcel of land on the north side of the tracks.

ccars, as I understand it, the posted master plan is mostly aspirational, not a concrete plan for the station.  So there will be a new station built at Mayfield in the next few years, even if the associated development is scaled down or completely absent.

So, here are some questions I have that I hope will incite debate on this:

1. Is the "Master Plan" the final RTA proposal for moving the station?

2. Have there been other proposals suggested?

3. How does this plan interfere with the planned Mayfield condominiums on the east side of E. 119th in Little Italy - there have been large advertising signs posted on that property for some time now.

 

1.  While the architect was approved, the design is still in process.

2. Don't recall, but there was an extensive planning process, so I do believe that other proposals were suggested.

3. The plan doesn't interfere with the adjacent projects.  In fact, it complements them.

 

In brief: the 120th St. rebuild will take place, the entrance will be on Mayfield, it is helping move adjacent development on both sides of the tracks, and it is already in the RTA capital budget for completion in Spring 2012.  Alas, it will likely be after you graduate, but you can stick around the city a bit longer if you wished.

ccars, I can share with you a discussion that relayed to me by a member of GCRTA's planning staff (keep in mind this is only a paraphrase of the discussion):

 

RTA executive: "Why are you planning such an extravagent station (at Mayfield)? We'll never get funding for the observation deck, greenspace above the tracks and the walkway to future buildings."

 

RTA planner: "It's a long-range plan. But we'll certainly never get them if we don't include them in the plan."

 

The moral of the story is, what's in a plan isn't what gets built. I'm sure you know that. But what's in the basic plan is what's most important, and that is to replace the Euclid-East 120th station for the same reason all the other RTA rail stations are being replaced: because they don't comform to Americans with Disabilities Act standards.

 

All stations that are dual level require elevators, signs in braile, tactile edges on trackside platforms and the like. RTA also wants to make sure that their stations are bright, inviting and safe. Their actual location with respect to their surroundings is secondary, but still important, so they can promote economic development and therefore boost station utility and transit ridership.

 

The Van Sweringen plan is less attractive, in my humble opinion, than RTA's basic plan which (if I recall correctly) is to have the station's access point directly below the tracks on Mayfield Road. See this post for some images and discussion about it:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2977.msg381559.html#msg381559

I've never heard anybody complain about a transit station being "too good."  Not sure what the issue is here.

I think his dispute was with the proposed design of the station not meshing well with its surroundings. Please don't say you've not disagreed with an architectural design before.

It's not the aesthetics that ccars is questioning if I'm reading the posts correctly, it's the "over the top" facility in terms of infrastructure.

I agree, I'm not so sure what building a grass bridge and modern rapid station over the railroad tracks would do to the quaint feel of Murray Hill.

I'm not really a huge fan of the design myself for the record.

Wow, you guys reply fast, I guess I should just always quote.

I am beginning to understand the notion that seems to permeate this board that one shouldn't complain if they are not otherwise trying to help.  But as it stands, I don't have very much influence on the RTA. :/

 

KJP: I had a notion that the ADA had something to do with all of this, and I wondered whether and to what extent mass-transit authorities are bound to follow the law -- after all, I've been on many streetcars, especially the vintage electric F-line in San Francisco, that were clearly not ADA-compliant. 

 

What's definitely clouding my understanding is that classic government "ask for more than what you need" attitude.  I'm definitely not used to it, working in the private sector where you commit yourself to one viable plan before hiring architects.  The station movement itself will be very important to the community subject to (1) the availability of funding and (2) the architectural impact on the surrounding area.  I think a solution exists that would be low-cost and much more achitecturally-friendly to the area.  (As a resident of Cleveland Heights, I hold a certain bias against bling-bling glass-and-chrome structures. Little Italy seems to have (somewhat) maintained its community character as a buffer between the restrictive Heights and the anything-goes Ford-Mayfield area.)  But we'll probably not even know what they're actually planning to do until they break ground!

I was just wondering as to when this talk would really (actually, no, seriously) get done.  I'm no transit expert, and I certainly don't pretend to know all the circumstances.  Heck, if I were running the RTA, I'd spend some of those capital funds restoring the LSE streetcars and run them in regular service on the Green Line. :)  But not to get /too/ off topic...

Public finance is like labor-management negotiations: shoot for the stars and anything you get between that and where you are now is an improvement. And to get there, you have to offer a conceptual plan with renderings to get the juices flowing in elected officials who hold the purse strings.

 

As for ADA, existing facilities are grandfathered in but only to a certain extent. In fact, I'm aware that intercity passenger rail stations used by Amtrak must be made ADA accessible by next summer, so much of the stimulus funding is going to go to that. I don't know if that deadline also applies to transit facilities, too. Some transit facilities or equipment, which is of an historic nature, may qualify for waivers of some kind. But I think that if a transit vehicle or facility is in regular transportation service, it must comply with ADA by a certain date.

 

And we are all welcome to complain here. But some here believe that you must get involved in order to justifiably complain. While I do get involved in lots of things, I don't get involved in everything I complain about. So the next time someone else complains about your complaining, tell them to follow their own advice and get involved. Tell them to try to make you shut up! ;-)

(As a resident of Cleveland Heights, I hold a certain bias against bling-bling glass-and-chrome structures. Little Italy seems to have (somewhat) maintained its community character as a buffer between the restrictive Heights and the anything-goes Ford-Mayfield area.)  But we'll probably not even know what they're actually planning to do until they break ground!

 

What are we trying to maintain?  The density-both people and buildings-and topography of the Little Italy neighborhood is what makes it an exciting place.  Most of the buildings rather generic-well kept but generic.  Thanks to the many medical, cultural, and educational institutions, University Circle and its environs are the most exciting, progressive, transient, etc. neighborhoods in the city.  Allowing for an envelope-pushing (for Cleveland anyway) design approach to an RTA station goes way beyond the cosmetic "bling-bling" you seem to oppose.  For the first time, especially on the east-side, a redline station becomes an integral part of the neighborhood.  It not only provides access to/from the area via the train but connects two neighborhoods on many levels.  The adjacent areas are filled with activity--we no longer shun some dirty, dangerous train.  Instead of transportation architecture serving solely a utilitarian purpose as it seems mandated in Cleveland (see our airport... :roll:), this station redefines the boundaries in which it can function as art, green space, retail, etc. 

 

I understand that two new fancy stations can only accomplish so much.  I'd much rather triple our rail coverage with very generic stations like Chicago but that isn't happening any time soon...

In the mean time, we need to make what we already have work!  We need to connect our good neighborhoods as to not allow the negative/void spaces in between to prevail.   

 

Why do we think some tiny 1/2 mile strip in Cleveland, OH should remain trapped in some time capsule when millenia old cities all over the world embrace technology, allowing it to respond to their current needs.  Cleveland is a place of transition/contrast.  This is what makes us unique!  They way in which we respond to what has happened the past 50 years in this city and how we move forward with new technologies will define us forever (because quite frankly, does anyone think we'll be around for 1000 more years).  If I want to hear Italian and eat good gelato I'll go to Rome.  If I want to be trapped in a brick and limestone maze, I'll head to Boston.  If I want to truly unique urban experience, I'll go to Cleveland where it should/could be an evolving/living museum of the industrialized world.

The fact that nothing in LI looks like a health-line station is part of what we're trying to preserve.  The density and topography wouldn't sell as well if every building in LI, or even 1/3, were replaced with contemporary styles.

 

I have no problem with an ambitious station design and I love observation decks.  But Cleveland has all the bling-bling glass and chrome structures it needs.  More than enough.  If at all possible I'd like to see Mayfield Rd get something that meshes well architecturally with the rest of LI.  By that I mean call the brick store and place an order.

You say tomato, I say tomato.    Is glass and chrome bling bling??? Or is a brick veneer, Las Vegas Venetian-looking station gaudy?

 

By NO means is Cleveland ahead of the curve regarding architecture and technology but that's for another time and place.

You say tomato, I say tomato. Is glass and chrome bling bling??? Or is a brick veneer, Las Vegas Venetian-looking station gaudy?

 

By NO means is Cleveland ahead of the curve regarding architecture and technology but that's for another time and place.

 

I totally agree. It frustrates me like crazy.

By NO means is Cleveland ahead of the curve regarding architecture and technology

 

I agree.  My point is that regardless of our positioning on the modernity curve, Cleveland is way behind the curve in terms of preserving its historic neighborhoods.  From that perspective, the encroachment of modern architecture into Little Italy is troubling and perhaps something to be avoided.

 

Example:  I really like those space-age periscope looking houses they're building by the west shoreway.  They're modern and they look great in my opinion.  It helps that there are several of them together.  So even though I prefer traditional materials and designs, I would hate to see someone put a brownstone right in the middle of that development.  It would ruin the effect they've created.

People, it's the contrasts of architectural styles (as long as the contemporary is tastefully responsive to the historic urban fabric in terms of density, street engagement, and scale) that make cities interesting.  To place one of the crappy off the shelf Wendy's fast food restaurant type stations that we have on the west side above the bridge at Mayfield it would be truely embarrassing.  It's not like anything is being torn down to accomodate this new station, it should be viewed as a welcome addition to a dynamic urban neighborhood.

There is already a stairway built into the Mayfield bridge from the Van Swerigan-era rail development.

 

Where is this stairway?  I have never noticed it and couldn't find it on Google Maps or Google Street View.  Thanks.

Where is this stairway?  I have never noticed it and couldn't find it on Google Maps or Google Street View.  Thanks.

 

Any information or back story on the stairway would be appreciated to, I tried googling it, but didn't find anything.  Sounds very interesting though...

People, it's the contrasts of architectural styles (as long as the contemporary is tastefully responsive to the historic urban fabric in terms of density, street engagement, and scale) that make cities interesting. To place one of the crappy off the shelf Wendy's fast food restaurant type stations that we have on the west side above the bridge at Mayfield it would be truely embarrassing. It's not like anything is being torn down to accomodate this new station, it should be viewed as a welcome addition to a dynamic urban neighborhood.

 

I totally agree.

 

Like it or not, I personally think architecture tends to inform people a lot about a city: where it's going, where it's been, etc. I think it also is oftentimes overlooked as a powerful tool for attracting people. Good design attracts good people.

Where is this stairway? I have never noticed it and couldn't find it on Google Maps or Google Street View. Thanks.

 

Any information or back story on the stairway would be appreciated to, I tried googling it, but didn't find anything. Sounds very interesting though...

 

If I remember right, the pedestrian portal for the Mayfield-Euclid station envisioned by the Van Sweringens was off East 117th Street, not Mayfield Road. Thus the station would have easy pedestrian access from either Mayfield or Euclid. Problem is, the Google streetview from East 117th is obscured by vegetation, but I believe it's just north of the old railroad side track bridge over East 117th that's been mostly removed. If you want to see where the tunnel access was, better hurry down there now or wait until October or November when the leaves fall off.

you can see it if you use mslive bird's eye view.

I doesn't see me no tunnels...

Cleveland is a place of transition/contrast.  This is what makes us unique!  They way in which we respond to what has happened the past 50 years in this city and how we move forward with new technologies will define us forever (because quite frankly, does anyone think we'll be around for 1000 more years).  If I want to hear Italian and eat good gelato I'll go to Rome.  If I want to be trapped in a brick and limestone maze, I'll head to Boston.  If I want to truly unique urban experience, I'll go to Cleveland where it should/could be an evolving/living museum of the industrialized world.

 

What?  Are you saying you want everything to be the same?  Cleveland is unique bc it is a place of transition/contrast?  What other, older cities are not experiencing the same things?

 

Also, it's not about hearing "Italian."  It's about preserving the distinct look of that neighborhood.  I mean, would it make sense to plop something down in Shaker Square that totally doesn't fit?  I think that is totally the wrong approach and destroys and continuity in a neighborhood.

 

 

on 117th about 50 yards up.  Interesting.  I have been having a discusion with a friend about the location of this place for about 2 weeks now, and neither of us are exactly sure if we are talking about the same thing.

Cleveland is a place of transition/contrast. This is what makes us unique! They way in which we respond to what has happened the past 50 years in this city and how we move forward with new technologies will define us forever (because quite frankly, does anyone think we'll be around for 1000 more years). If I want to hear Italian and eat good gelato I'll go to Rome. If I want to be trapped in a brick and limestone maze, I'll head to Boston. If I want to truly unique urban experience, I'll go to Cleveland where it should/could be an evolving/living museum of the industrialized world.

 

What? Are you saying you want everything to be the same? Cleveland is unique bc it is a place of transition/contrast? What other, older cities are not experiencing the same things?

 

Also, it's not about hearing "Italian." It's about preserving the distinct look of that neighborhood. I mean, would it make sense to plop something down in Shaker Square that totally doesn't fit? I think that is totally the wrong approach and destroys and continuity in a neighborhood.

 

Precisely.  There are plenty of great areas in Cleveland for pushing the envelope architecturally.  I don't feel that this is one of those areas. 

Where is this stairway?  I have never noticed it and couldn't find it on Google Maps or Google Street View.  Thanks.

 

Any information or back story on the stairway would be appreciated to, I tried googling it, but didn't find anything.  Sounds very interesting though...

 

If I remember right, the pedestrian portal for the Mayfield-Euclid station envisioned by the Van Sweringens was off East 117th Street, not Mayfield Road. Thus the station would have easy pedestrian access from either Mayfield or Euclid. Problem is, the Google streetview from East 117th is obscured by vegetation, but I believe it's just north of the old railroad side track bridge over East 117th that's been mostly removed. If you want to see where the tunnel access was, better hurry down there now or wait until October or November when the leaves fall off.

 

The 117th entrance was evidently the actual access point before 1955.  If I recall correctly, there is also a vault inside the Mayfield Road bridge that was also either planned as a stairwell or actually implemented.  It's simply covered by painted plywood right now.  Someday soon, I'm going to take a walk and snoop around with my camera.  I just love uncovering evidence of Cleveland transportation history.

 

Incidentally, the Lakeview or Auburndale bridge still has station entrance signs above the boarded-up stairwells.  I wouldn't be surprised to find evidence of a transit stop at any bridge in East Cleveland.

 

Edit: I found a picture of the stairwell on Mayfield to which I was referring:

The doorway to the original site is situated between the two bridge spans.  I would love to push for remodeling the station to use it as a temporary boarding point until accessibility features are added...heck, if I were in construction, I would do the thing myself!  Station building can't possibly be that complicated, especially given the spartan nature of the E120th station...  :?  Just need to come up with the other couple million to pay off the city government.

 

People, it's the contrasts of architectural styles (as long as the contemporary is tastefully responsive to the historic urban fabric in terms of density, street engagement, and scale) that make cities interesting. 

 

I absolutely agree with you: a mix of the modern new with charming antiques makes for a very interesting place.  However, we have to also acknowledge that much of the reason an older neighborhood maintains its character is because it has an _identity_.  An old neighborhood maintains something of a golden-age character, but an old building standing among modern structures tends to look quite out-of-place.  We can still thrust forward with progressive plans, but we have to focus on how to create, preserve and strengthen each neighborhood's identity. 

I think Little Italy is a perfect place to start with TOD, but we need to be mindful of what LI means to visitors and residents and build structures to complement it.  This entire area including the Heights was essentially a (private) TOD experiment in the turn of the century.  There's no reason why we can't repeat it with roughly the same plans.

There is no reason to replicate and disrespect past architecture with illegitimate, "historic" design.  If design should be anything, it should at least be truthful to the viewer.

Throwing crocker park type buildings all over the place would be a wasted opportunity.

There is no reason to replicate and disrespect past architecture with illegitimate, "historic" design. If design should be anything, it should at least be truthful to the viewer.

Throwing crocker park type buildings all over the place would be a wasted opportunity.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "truthful."  Just because a particular brick architectural style was more popular in early 20th century does not mean that it is impractical or impossible to build now.  Likewise, glass-and-steel building construction was extremely popular during the 1960s.  We simply have more architectural options available today.  We need to be sure we don't apply them willy-nilly without regard to the surrounding area.

 

Here's a Google Streets view of the Mayfield Road condominiums/townhomes on the eastern side of Little Italy:

 

http://tinyurl.com/ddjrn8

 

While these may not be my personal ideal, I think it's a fairly good example of how more classic styling can be applied to an older neighborhood to complement the surroundings rather than detract from it.  Overall, I think this was an improvement to the street.

My bone fides: I attended CWRU from 1977-1984.  I lived off of 115th for more than three years.  I can tell you anecdotally that CWRU graduate students that I knew living in the area at that time considered the E. 120th red line station to be far more dangerous than the Cedar Road station.  I personally know two students who were mugged at that E. 120th station (one with a gun).  I vaguely remember crime statistics confirming that anecdotal information.  Take that for what it is worth.  I also don't like the proposed new station design and would prefer using the existing stairwell with a more "old world" design for this neighborhood. 

97% of us either take your word for it, or acknowledge it.