Even Chester, when it was extended east of East 55th in the late 1940s, retained intersections with most of the cross-streets. Although I think Chester hurt the commercial districts along Euclid Avenue by creating a horizontal wall from Hough (and thus also hurting Hough), this design at least let folks living along north-south streets walk cross Chester at multiple locations. And it forced traffic to slow down. These reduced number of intersections, chopping up the street grid, and noise walls prevents the boulevard from being fully integrated into the neighborhood.

 

Yes.  You'll note that on the Chester extension, very few buildings to this day actually front on Chester, and it's been some 70 years since it was extended ... And for many of us on the East Side, esp in the Heights, Chester was the closest thing we had/have to a freeway downtown.  And today, even with those pesky traffic cameras, it's the preferred "fastest" route downtown -- used to be an unwritten rule that if you maintain a speed of 35 mph you could travel nonstop all the way into downtown, and it used to work (until now with more ill-timed traffic lights and the happy apartment development adjacent to CSU ...  Chester, like the OC, was developed to speed traffic to/from University Circle, it was never designed to attract development... And you could argue that the OC is even worse/more extreme because the OC, is in fact, envisioned to extend an actually freeway stub with this higher speed highway "boulevard."

They wont be "escaping the neighborhood" with those noise walls.

 

I put the over under on that being tagging central for every gang banger and wanna be within a 5 mile radius, and micheal symons nephew to before construction is complete.

 

They are going to wish they never put them up....but the noise wall people will get a nice payday, I am sure they gave kasich a bunch of $$.  I also put the over under on the noise walls crumbling and needing replaced at 10 years....a nice little annuity for those folks.

 

and who is left in that neighborhood that needs noise walls?  the few people there now wont be when this is all over?

 

Guess we can give +10 points to those calling it a highway and -10 to anybody calling it anything else.

 

 

 

As I've said multiple times:

• This highway will divide the neighborhood, those "with" will drive by it and those "without" will be trapped and confined.  The overall highway project will further deteriorate the neighborhood, but someone here will say, thats are forced to move will be offered more than what their homes are for.
  
• How are these walls, going to make the area better and more appealing to current residents, someone please spin that for me?
  
• If these walls go up, how is walking, riding or even rail to benefit?  I'm Black & Latino and I wouldn't ride through there this area NOW?
  

I've referred to this as a HIGHWAY since the beginning of the thread.  I should be given a million points!

 

This a highway/freeway - period!

Even Chester, when it was extended east of East 55th in the late 1940s, retained intersections with most of the cross-streets. Although I think Chester hurt the commercial districts along Euclid Avenue by creating a horizontal wall from Hough (and thus also hurting Hough), this design at least let folks living along north-south streets walk cross Chester at multiple locations. And it forced traffic to slow down. These reduced number of intersections, chopping up the street grid, and noise walls prevents the boulevard from being fully integrated into the neighborhood.

 

Yes.  You'll note that on the Chester extension, very few buildings to this day actually front on Chester, and it's been some 70 years since it was extended ... And for many of us on the East Side, esp in the Heights, Chester was the closest thing we had/have to a freeway downtown.  And today, even with those pesky traffic cameras, it's the preferred "fastest" route downtown -- used to be an unwritten rule that if you maintain a speed of 35 mph you could travel nonstop all the way into downtown, and it used to work (until now with more ill-timed traffic lights and the happy apartment development adjacent to CSU ...  Chester, like the OC, was developed to speed traffic to/from University Circle, it was never designed to attract development... And you could argue that the OC is even worse/more extreme because the OC, is in fact, envisioned to extend an actually freeway stub with this higher speed highway "boulevard."

 

When I lived in Little Italy I had it down to a science.  Chester inbound at 37 mph, Carnegie outbound (in the days when Carnegie had the lane-conversion arrows that confused many a suburbanite!).

Even Chester, when it was extended east of East 55th in the late 1940s, retained intersections with most of the cross-streets. Although I think Chester hurt the commercial districts along Euclid Avenue by creating a horizontal wall from Hough (and thus also hurting Hough), this design at least let folks living along north-south streets walk cross Chester at multiple locations. And it forced traffic to slow down. These reduced number of intersections, chopping up the street grid, and noise walls prevents the boulevard from being fully integrated into the neighborhood.

 

Yes.  You'll note that on the Chester extension, very few buildings to this day actually front on Chester, and it's been some 70 years since it was extended ... And for many of us on the East Side, esp in the Heights, Chester was the closest thing we had/have to a freeway downtown.  And today, even with those pesky traffic cameras, it's the preferred "fastest" route downtown -- used to be an unwritten rule that if you maintain a speed of 35 mph you could travel nonstop all the way into downtown, and it used to work (until now with more ill-timed traffic lights and the happy apartment development adjacent to CSU ...  Chester, like the OC, was developed to speed traffic to/from University Circle, it was never designed to attract development... And you could argue that the OC is even worse/more extreme because the OC, is in fact, envisioned to extend an actually freeway stub with this higher speed highway "boulevard."

 

Agreed.  Living in Shaker we could have taken Woodland downtown, but my dad would always drive North Park then downtown via Chester and/or Carnegie.

Noise travels. 

 

People living in the St. Hyacinth neighborhood have lodged noise complaints against nearby industries, and that's just what comes out of one plant, as I understand it.

 

There is already a large distribution center conglomoration just north of 490, south of Woodland, west of 55th.  Nobody wants to live anywhere near that, as development levels in the surrounding area can attest.  If there are any plans on the table for creating desirable residential along this stretch, new road or no road, I would love to hear them.  I'm intimately familiar with this part of the city through my work, and IMO it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.  For everyone's sake, but in particular for its remaining residents.

 

Wyman Gordon.  I interviewed there once, in about 2003 or so.  It's an aerospace forging facility and the noise it (or Sifco on 65th north of St Clair) makes puts any freeway to shame.

 

I don't see how you can put desirable residential in this stretch.  With the OC and some CERCLA remediation, it's got potential for industry, though.  In part, because of noise.  When you make things, noise happens.  So does mild and localized pollution. 

 

Unless there are schools or hospitals being protected, I don't see the point of the noise walls.  Plant trees.

If this project is successful it will host a lot of truck traffic, so sound walls might not be the worst idea.

 

I want dense mixed-use development as much as... everyone here except ERocc.  Those desirable areas require a tax base and a jobs base from industry.  As I made clear in years past, I was not willing to sacrifice Euclid Avenue to that end.  I firmly believe that if any place in Cleveland is appropriate for the proverbial Urban Paradise, Euclid Avenue was it.  Alas. 

 

I'm not against it.  I just suspect the demand is overrated on these pages.  Highly so. 

 

Industry, at least the kind that doesn't get so many tax abatements it's a wash benefit wise, needs to be rather carefully located vis a vis residential.  Even in medium density.  It's often noisy and occasionally smelly.

 

As far as residential/retail is concerned, I'm pretty certain that trying to plan one from scratch in an area that's tanked badly is likely doomed to failure, and at best draws people from existing similar areas that get overrun by blight.  So basically, it's being shuffled around.  It's far more effective to expand existing such areas, but that doesn't require government action so it's not as popular.

 

I'm extremely skeptical about planned "mixed income" neighborhoods.  They become "mixed values", and lots of values sets don't mix well.  Various neighborhoods developed because of people's similarities, including similar values. 

 

 

They wont be "escaping the neighborhood" with those noise walls.

 

I put the over under on that being tagging central for every gang banger and wanna be within a 5 mile radius, and micheal symons nephew to before construction is complete.

 

They are going to wish they never put them up....but the noise wall people will get a nice payday, I am sure they gave kasich a bunch of $$.  I also put the over under on the noise walls crumbling and needing replaced at 10 years....a nice little annuity for those folks.

 

and who is left in that neighborhood that needs noise walls?  the few people there now wont be when this is all over?

 

Guess we can give +10 points to those calling it a highway and -10 to anybody calling it anything else.

 

 

 

As I've said multiple times:

• This highway will divide the neighborhood, those "with" will drive by it and those "without" will be trapped and confined.  The overall highway project will further deteriorate the neighborhood, but someone here will say, thats are forced to move will be offered more than what their homes are for.
  
• How are these walls, going to make the area better and more appealing to current residents, someone please spin that for me?
  
• If these walls go up, how is walking, riding or even rail to benefit?  I'm Black & Latino and I wouldn't ride through there this area NOW?
  

I've referred to this as a HIGHWAY since the beginning of the thread.  I should be given a million points!

 

This a highway/freeway - period!

 

Right!!!

If there is one thing I hate, its sound walls!

 

As for people not liking crowds, I don't find that to be true. Why do people spend there hard earned money to visit cities like New York, Paris, London, Chicago, Toronto, etc? People sit in timesquare just to take in the crowds. Festivals?

 

Hell, even shopping malls. If its empty people call them dead.

I agree as well. I've been generally positive on this as a Summit County resident it won't affect me too much.  Adding sound walls is a deal killer. They might as well put the road in the trench and take the train out with that logic.

I have seen this a lot out west in newer areas in places like CA and NV...wide arterial roads lined with tricked up sound walls and landscaping that hide the subdivisions along the route.

Just to be clear on the 'Proposed' sound barriers. After reviewing the route I count about 1100 feet of possible sound walls out of 3.5 miles, which is about 18000 feet. Not a lot to get worked up about. Unless of course you're looking for something to get worked up about.

Looking at the plan segment KJP posted, I think I'd rather see those two houses just taken through ED and the property consolidated into a single OC-oriented development site instead of a 500 foot sound barrier.

If there is one thing I hate, its sound walls!

 

As for people not liking crowds, I don't find that to be true. Why do people spend there hard earned money to visit cities like New York, Paris, London, Chicago, Toronto, etc? People sit in timesquare just to take in the crowds. Festivals?

 

Hell, even shopping malls. If its empty people call them dead.

 

Again, it's usually event based.  Also, more often than not a crowded situation is "a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there".

 

Look at any place that is sometimes crowded, when it isn't.  Buses, theaters, restaurants and bars.....  People spread out, or congregate in small groups that know each other.

Just to be clear on the 'Proposed' sound barriers. After reviewing the route I count about 1100 feet of possible sound walls out of 3.5 miles, which is about 18000 feet. Not a lot to get worked up about. Unless of course you're looking for something to get worked up about.

 

Good catch.  I can see localized places where it might make sense, but overall it does not.

they should convert 490 into a boulevard up to W 14th and have north/south tremont be connected by more than just one road.

If there is one thing I hate, its sound walls!

 

As for people not liking crowds, I don't find that to be true. Why do people spend there hard earned money to visit cities like New York, Paris, London, Chicago, Toronto, etc? People sit in timesquare just to take in the crowds. Festivals?

 

Hell, even shopping malls. If its empty people call them dead.

 

Again, it's usually event based.  Also, more often than not a crowded situation is "a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there".

 

Look at any place that is sometimes crowded, when it isn't.  Buses, theaters, restaurants and bars.....  People spread out, or congregate in small groups that know each other.

 

Crowds don't mean you have to talk to people. But with your restaurant example, who wants to go to a dead empty restaurant. That's boring. People like restaurants full of people and activity, even though they might not talk to anyone but those they came with. It's the atmosphere.

If there is one thing I hate, its sound walls!

 

As for people not liking crowds, I don't find that to be true. Why do people spend there hard earned money to visit cities like New York, Paris, London, Chicago, Toronto, etc? People sit in timesquare just to take in the crowds. Festivals?

 

Hell, even shopping malls. If its empty people call them dead.

 

Again, it's usually event based.  Also, more often than not a crowded situation is "a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there".

 

Look at any place that is sometimes crowded, when it isn't.  Buses, theaters, restaurants and bars.....  People spread out, or congregate in small groups that know each other.

 

Crowds don't mean you have to talk to people. But with your restaurant example, who wants to go to a dead empty restaurant. That's boring. People like restaurants full of people and activity, even though they might not talk to anyone but those they came with. It's the atmosphere.

 

LOL I would hope not.  I don't think anyone on this Earth hates random conversation more than me.  :-)

 

I think the restaurant example has more to do with a perception, perhaps unconscious, that the place is empty because the quality is not up to par.  Buses and theaters might be better examples.

 

In any case, people don't sit in clumps even though the wait staff may try to steer them into doing so.

something went wrong.  Opened one thread and my response came to this thread.  weird, very weird.

If this project is successful it will host a lot of truck traffic, so sound walls might not be the worst idea.

 

I want dense mixed-use development as much as... everyone here except ERocc.  Those desirable areas require a tax base and a jobs base from industry.  As I made clear in years past, I was not willing to sacrifice Euclid Avenue to that end.  I firmly believe that if any place in Cleveland is appropriate for the proverbial Urban Paradise, Euclid Avenue was it.  Alas. 

 

I'm not against it.  I just suspect the demand is overrated on these pages.  Highly so. 

 

Industry, at least the kind that doesn't get so many tax abatements it's a wash benefit wise, needs to be rather carefully located vis a vis residential.  Even in medium density.  It's often noisy and occasionally smelly.

 

As far as residential/retail is concerned, I'm pretty certain that trying to plan one from scratch in an area that's tanked badly is likely doomed to failure, and at best draws people from existing similar areas that get overrun by blight.  So basically, it's being shuffled around.  It's far more effective to expand existing such areas, but that doesn't require government action so it's not as popular.

 

I'm extremely skeptical about planned "mixed income" neighborhoods.  They become "mixed values", and lots of values sets don't mix well.  Various neighborhoods developed because of people's similarities, including similar values. 

 

I see you have  spent decades studying this issue, how Can you explain how this country survives it being multi-cultural and All?

 

 

how do you explain the enclaves of "mixed values" through out this city, county, state and country?

 

Where did you get your Degree in social science? Wikipedia? Rush Limbaugh? David Duke?

 

 

If this project is successful it will host a lot of truck traffic, so sound walls might not be the worst idea.

 

I want dense mixed-use development as much as... everyone here except ERocc.  Those desirable areas require a tax base and a jobs base from industry.  As I made clear in years past, I was not willing to sacrifice Euclid Avenue to that end.  I firmly believe that if any place in Cleveland is appropriate for the proverbial Urban Paradise, Euclid Avenue was it.  Alas. 

 

I'm not against it.  I just suspect the demand is overrated on these pages.  Highly so. 

 

Industry, at least the kind that doesn't get so many tax abatements it's a wash benefit wise, needs to be rather carefully located vis a vis residential.  Even in medium density.  It's often noisy and occasionally smelly.

 

As far as residential/retail is concerned, I'm pretty certain that trying to plan one from scratch in an area that's tanked badly is likely doomed to failure, and at best draws people from existing similar areas that get overrun by blight.  So basically, it's being shuffled around.  It's far more effective to expand existing such areas, but that doesn't require government action so it's not as popular.

 

I'm extremely skeptical about planned "mixed income" neighborhoods.  They become "mixed values", and lots of values sets don't mix well.  Various neighborhoods developed because of people's similarities, including similar values. 

 

I see you have  spent decades studying this issue, how Can you explain how this country survives it being multi-cultural and All?

 

 

how do you explain the enclaves of "mixed values" through out this city, county, state and country?

 

Where did you get your Degree in social science? Wikipedia? Rush Limbaugh? David Duke?

 

About three decades, actually, on and off.

 

Actually, the nation not only survives but thrives on being "multi cultural" through enclaves and through breathing space.  I mean multi cultural in the strictly defined sense (different cultures), not in the PC sense that all are inherently equal and had equivalent roles in the development of our mass culture.

 

It's because America is a popular culture, perhaps the first, that this dual development happened.

 

Ironically, what really kicked it into gear was the suburbs.  Dense cities were typically ethnically segregated.

I have seen this a lot out west in newer areas in places like CA and NV...wide arterial roads lined with tricked up sound walls and landscaping that hide the subdivisions along the route.

 

 

This design pattern is very prevalent in some of the most highly planned and desirable places to live in the country. I'm thinking places like Irvine, CA. Lots of 50 MPH boulevards (definitely not "highways", despite the speed limit) with very dense housing immediately adjacent behind barriers/landscaping. Not a model used much here in Ohio (at least not that I'm aware of, since we don't actually plan much of anything), but obviously extremely successful at what it's trying to accomplish. And in practice just about the opposite of "forbidding" or "dead" or "separating". In fact, extremely inviting and walkable/bikeable.

 

Not to say that this pattern is necessarily appropriate in this case (or that they're really even trying to use it), but it definitely can work really well.

 

 

 

If this project is successful it will host a lot of truck traffic, so sound walls might not be the worst idea.

 

I want dense mixed-use development as much as... everyone here except ERocc.  Those desirable areas require a tax base and a jobs base from industry.  As I made clear in years past, I was not willing to sacrifice Euclid Avenue to that end.  I firmly believe that if any place in Cleveland is appropriate for the proverbial Urban Paradise, Euclid Avenue was it.  Alas. 

 

I'm not against it.  I just suspect the demand is overrated on these pages.  Highly so. 

 

Industry, at least the kind that doesn't get so many tax abatements it's a wash benefit wise, needs to be rather carefully located vis a vis residential.  Even in medium density.  It's often noisy and occasionally smelly.

 

As far as residential/retail is concerned, I'm pretty certain that trying to plan one from scratch in an area that's tanked badly is likely doomed to failure, and at best draws people from existing similar areas that get overrun by blight.  So basically, it's being shuffled around.  It's far more effective to expand existing such areas, but that doesn't require government action so it's not as popular.

 

I'm extremely skeptical about planned "mixed income" neighborhoods.  They become "mixed values", and lots of values sets don't mix well.  Various neighborhoods developed because of people's similarities, including similar values. 

 

I see you have  spent decades studying this issue, how Can you explain how this country survives it being multi-cultural and All?

 

 

how do you explain the enclaves of "mixed values" through out this city, county, state and country?

 

Where did you get your Degree in social science? Wikipedia? Rush Limbaugh? David Duke?

 

About three decades, actually, on and off.

 

Actually, the nation not only survives but thrives on being "multi cultural" through enclaves and through breathing space.  I mean multi cultural in the strictly defined sense (different cultures), not in the PC sense that all are inherently equal and had equivalent roles in the development of our mass culture.

 

It's because America is a popular culture, perhaps the first, that this dual development happened.

 

Ironically, what really kicked it into gear was the suburbs.  Dense cities were typically ethnically segregated.

 

so you must have a doctorate by Now, right?

 

how do You Explain My neighborhood?  Arab on my left, Appalachian White on my right and myself, black American in the middle?.

 

Please Stop, you have NO data to back what you say up. 

 

If you were to use a more modern and more Accurate Term for segregation is that it is segregation based on wealth not Race or even culture.

 

you are just making your self look obtuse and dense.

 

 

I have seen this a lot out west in newer areas in places like CA and NV...wide arterial roads lined with tricked up sound walls and landscaping that hide the subdivisions along the route.

 

 

This design pattern is very prevalent in some of the most highly planned and desirable places to live in the country. I'm thinking places like Irvine, CA. Lots of 50 MPH boulevards (definitely not "highways", despite the speed limit) with very dense housing immediately adjacent behind barriers/landscaping. Not a model used much here in Ohio (at least not that I'm aware of, since we don't actually plan much of anything), but obviously extremely successful at what it's trying to accomplish. And in practice just about the opposite of "forbidding" or "dead" or "separating". In fact, extremely inviting and walkable/bikeable.

 

Not to say that this pattern is necessarily appropriate in this case (or that they're really even trying to use it), but it definitely can work really well.

 

Work really well?

 

http://goo.gl/maps/M3DRn

 

How does that work really well?  It absolutely is "separating", "dead", and "forbidding" for anyone that is not driving a car.  That might as well be a freeway.  Would you walk on that sidewalk with cars whizzing past you at 50+ MPH inches away, a wall on the other side, no eyes on the street, no street lights, and absolutely no destinations in sight to walk to?  And the walls are pretty much the definition of separating.  Imagine living right across that street from a friend and trying to walk to their house.  You'd probably half to walk over a mile and still cross a busy 5-lane 45 MPH speed limit road.

 

I think this pattern is an extreme example of what is wrong with auto-centric development.

^agree...that was why I made the original comment, its a bad way of development.

 

how do You Explain My neighborhood?  Arab on my left, Appalachian White on my right and myself, black American in the middle?.

 

Please Stop, you have NO data to back what you say up. 

 

If you were to use a more modern and more Accurate Term for segregation is that it is segregation based on wealth not Race or even culture.

 

It's a qualitative, not a quantitative discussion.

 

Segregation based upon race was wrong because it was based on something people could not control and could not change, and was based upon force if neccesary.

 

Economic and cultural segregation are not based on force, but on individual decisions.  Most people prefer to live around those with whom they share basic values.  College kids and retired people, for example, may not make the best of neighbors. 

 

In a free society, those patterns will manifest themselves in spite of attempts by government and/or activists to promote otherwise.  Such actions, flying in the face of individuals with the wherewithal to resist, are destined to fail.  Tax money is wasted, and there can be other unintended consequences as well.

I have seen this a lot out west in newer areas in places like CA and NV...wide arterial roads lined with tricked up sound walls and landscaping that hide the subdivisions along the route.

 

 

This design pattern is very prevalent in some of the most highly planned and desirable places to live in the country. I'm thinking places like Irvine, CA. Lots of 50 MPH boulevards (definitely not "highways", despite the speed limit) with very dense housing immediately adjacent behind barriers/landscaping. Not a model used much here in Ohio (at least not that I'm aware of, since we don't actually plan much of anything), but obviously extremely successful at what it's trying to accomplish. And in practice just about the opposite of "forbidding" or "dead" or "separating". In fact, extremely inviting and walkable/bikeable.

 

Not to say that this pattern is necessarily appropriate in this case (or that they're really even trying to use it), but it definitely can work really well.

 

Work really well?

 

http://goo.gl/maps/M3DRn

 

How does that work really well? 

 

It works well for the people who live there.  For those with different ideas of how people should live, it may not. 

I have seen this a lot out west in newer areas in places like CA and NV...wide arterial roads lined with tricked up sound walls and landscaping that hide the subdivisions along the route.

 

 

This design pattern is very prevalent in some of the most highly planned and desirable places to live in the country. I'm thinking places like Irvine, CA. Lots of 50 MPH boulevards (definitely not "highways", despite the speed limit) with very dense housing immediately adjacent behind barriers/landscaping. Not a model used much here in Ohio (at least not that I'm aware of, since we don't actually plan much of anything), but obviously extremely successful at what it's trying to accomplish. And in practice just about the opposite of "forbidding" or "dead" or "separating". In fact, extremely inviting and walkable/bikeable.

 

Not to say that this pattern is necessarily appropriate in this case (or that they're really even trying to use it), but it definitely can work really well.

 

Work really well?

 

http://goo.gl/maps/M3DRn

 

How does that work really well? 

 

It works well for the people who live there.  For those with different ideas of how people should live, it may not. 

 

Just as your ideas of how we all should have to live may not work either.

 

Maybe this "works" in a suburban area, but do people living in the city want it?  Why should suburbanites get to ram their ways down the throats of those living in the city?

^is it suburbanites making the decisions?  I thought it was Cleveland City Planning & the Mayor's office that were supporting this project...

^is it suburbanites making the decisions?  I thought it was Cleveland City Planning & the Mayor's office that were supporting this project...

 

Are they funding it?

 

And who do you think carries the most influence with high-ranking government officials.  I highly doubt the opinions of those who do not own cars weigh too much on their minds.

 

My main problem is that ERocc keeps pounding home the "different ideas on how people should live" comment, without realizing that many people view suburbanites' way of living as just another "different idea on how people should live" as well.  It's a two way street.

 

I believe at one point he even went as far as to equate those who support urban development with radical Muslims.  Do I even need to go into how ridiculous that is?

^is it suburbanites making the decisions?  I thought it was Cleveland City Planning & the Mayor's office that were supporting this project...

 

Are they funding it?

 

And who do you think carries the most influence with high-ranking government officials.  I highly doubt the opinions of those who do not own cars weigh too much on their minds.

 

My main problem is that ERocc keeps pounding home the "different ideas on how people should live" comment, without realizing that many people view suburbanites' way of living as just another "different idea on how people should live" as well.  It's a two way street.

 

I believe at one point he even went as far as to equate those who support urban development with radical Muslims.  Do I even need to go into how ridiculous that is?

 

 

But seriously- I wonder of ODOT has even been through the neighborhood; or knows what shape the neighborhood is in; to know that putting sound walls along this route is a BAD idea.  Guaranteed the walls will be tagged with graffiti within a week of the walls being installed. 

 

The sound walls helped push my opinion towards being against the build out of this new road.  I know of the current status of the route through some neighborhoods (the E. 79th looks very much like a poor rural area versus being in the center of a major city which speaks volumes for the area)- however, holding the initial public meeting at the Plain Dealer and not beginning the discussion in the neighborhoods affected also pushed my opinion to being against it as well.  This road was NOT proposed in order to benefit the neighborhoods through which the road is being built; any benefit appears to be an afterthought versus one which is planned.     

Right now, it will be primarily funded by turnpike revenues, with a small percentage, but still a good chunk of local and regional money.

 

There will be no sound walls, no exit ramps.  I will have sidewalks, a bike path, cross walks, a grassy median, and traffic lights.

If it does not act a a Main Street / Boulevard, I'll be against it and so will a whole lot of stakeholders.

If it does not act a a Main Street / Boulevard, I'll be against it and so will a whole lot of stakeholders.

 

I think you'll be against it then.  I envision this thing turning out even worse than Chester, and I doubt you'd consider that as a Main Street.

 

But I think you'd be in the minority in being against it.  You're fooling yourself if you don't think most people from outside the city limits want this thing to be as close to a freeway as possible.

^I really only care about Cleveland, and the lower East Side of Cuyahoga county, including Euclid.

 

My reasons for support are well documented upthread.

I was recently in LA for a wedding and I thought the Del Amo Blvd design looked like a nice model for the OC.  They sandwich the higher speed boulevard with neighborhood streets to create some separation from the houses and sidewalks.  Sure it's a wide chunk of asphalt, but if properly landscaped it might be a decent solution.  I would prefer this solution over sound walls anyway...

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lakewood,+ca&hl=en&ll=33.847041,-118.120499&spn=0.014845,0.01929&sll=33.596247,-112.196932&sspn=0.059554,0.077162&t=h&hnear=Lakewood,+Los+Angeles,+California&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.847041,-118.120499&panoid=YDMJCyKvySPgm7dkYBGyUw&cbp=12,87.3,,0,14.62

At least they have crosswalks when the streets are cut off, but I'm not sure who in their right mind would actually believe cars would stop for them in this one:

 

http://goo.gl/maps/KNMfS

I was recently in LA for a wedding and I thought the Del Amo Blvd design looked like a nice model for the OC.  They sandwich the higher speed boulevard with neighborhood streets to create some separation from the houses and sidewalks.  Sure it's a wide chunk of asphalt, but if properly landscaped it might be a decent solution.  I would prefer this solution over sound walls anyway...

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lakewood,+ca&hl=en&ll=33.847041,-118.120499&spn=0.014845,0.01929&sll=33.596247,-112.196932&sspn=0.059554,0.077162&t=h&hnear=Lakewood,+Los+Angeles,+California&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.847041,-118.120499&panoid=YDMJCyKvySPgm7dkYBGyUw&cbp=12,87.3,,0,14.62

 

What was the speed limit there?  As I understand it, the OC road will be 35mph

^is it suburbanites making the decisions?  I thought it was Cleveland City Planning & the Mayor's office that were supporting this project...

 

Are they funding it?

 

And who do you think carries the most influence with high-ranking government officials.  I highly doubt the opinions of those who do not own cars weigh too much on their minds.

 

My main problem is that ERocc keeps pounding home the "different ideas on how people should live" comment, without realizing that many people view suburbanites' way of living as just another "different idea on how people should live" as well.  It's a two way street.

 

I believe at one point he even went as far as to equate those who support urban development with radical Muslims.  Do I even need to go into how ridiculous that is?

 

Huh?  When?

 

The main difference seems to me that those who prefer sprawl aren't really prosletyzers. 

 

Yes, they prefer that the taxes they pay be spent in ways they prefer.

 

But they don't go around saying everyone should live their way.

^is it suburbanites making the decisions?  I thought it was Cleveland City Planning & the Mayor's office that were supporting this project...

 

Are they funding it?

 

And who do you think carries the most influence with high-ranking government officials.  I highly doubt the opinions of those who do not own cars weigh too much on their minds.

 

I agree with much of what you're saying but I think you're missing a prevalent thread in city development is that construction work = jobs.  Many of these councilmembers in poor districts are BEGGING for a project like this to begin in their districts.  I see it every day.  Have a talk with Natoya Walker in Mayor Jackson's office and ask her how many local resident jobs this project will create.  I'm sure she already knows and they are ready & waiting for the project to begin so these people can make real money & learn valuable work skills.  You may not like highway building, but it's probably the fastest legitimate way to put money in local residents' pockets.

Huh?  When?

 

The main difference seems to me that those who prefer sprawl aren't really prosletyzers. 

 

Yes, they prefer that the taxes they pay be spent in ways they prefer.

 

But they don't go around saying everyone should live their way.

 

Apparently it has been lost in the server crash.  Lucky for you I guess.  I remember typing half of a reply and then discarding it because I figured it wasn't even worth getting into an argument over.

 

Anyway...

 

I think you're completely off point about the proselytizing.  Suburban plans tend to eliminate any option other than the car, and this type of construction has been "proselytized" all over America for 70 years such that a huge swath of the population now lives in an area where they only have one realistic transportation options.  Urban development in the United States is nowhere near being in the position to eliminate options, but rather to PROVIDE options.  Very rarely do urban development plans eliminate the ability to drive an automobile, but very often suburban plans eliminate every mode of transportation EXCEPT for the automobile.  That is why I believe suburbanites are the "pushier" of the groups in wanting things to only work the way they like.

 

And since when have urban planners forced people to live a certain way?  Have you ever seen anyone on here advocating going into Westlake and tearing everything down and rebuilding it densely?

^^^The speed limit on Del Amo was 40 mph IIRC.  And they had marked cross walks all over the place, but I never saw anyone attempt to cross at them.

I have seen this a lot out west in newer areas in places like CA and NV...wide arterial roads lined with tricked up sound walls and landscaping that hide the subdivisions along the route.

 

 

This design pattern is very prevalent in some of the most highly planned and desirable places to live in the country. I'm thinking places like Irvine, CA. Lots of 50 MPH boulevards (definitely not "highways", despite the speed limit) with very dense housing immediately adjacent behind barriers/landscaping. Not a model used much here in Ohio (at least not that I'm aware of, since we don't actually plan much of anything), but obviously extremely successful at what it's trying to accomplish. And in practice just about the opposite of "forbidding" or "dead" or "separating". In fact, extremely inviting and walkable/bikeable.

 

Not to say that this pattern is necessarily appropriate in this case (or that they're really even trying to use it), but it definitely can work really well.

 

Work really well?

 

http://goo.gl/maps/M3DRn

 

How does that work really well?  It absolutely is "separating", "dead", and "forbidding" for anyone that is not driving a car.  That might as well be a freeway.  Would you walk on that sidewalk with cars whizzing past you at 50+ MPH inches away, a wall on the other side, no eyes on the street, no street lights, and absolutely no destinations in sight to walk to?  And the walls are pretty much the definition of separating.  Imagine living right across that street from a friend and trying to walk to their house.  You'd probably half to walk over a mile and still cross a busy 5-lane 45 MPH speed limit road.

 

I think this pattern is an extreme example of what is wrong with auto-centric development.

 

That's funny. Ignore my example, pick some other random place and then talk about this new place you picked as if that's what I was referring to. Nice trick. I'll have to remember that one.

 

How about instead we use my actual example: an arterial, in Irvine. http://bit.ly/15fl0Gl

 

You cannot say the street in Irvine is forbidding. Or bereft of destinations. Or lacking street lights. Or impossible to walk along or across. (Or, I should add, tough to bike on. Or missing public transportation.) Yes, the speed limit on that street is 45 and there are multiple lanes and occasional sound barriers. But despite these "auto-centric" features, the street in Irvine works very well at a lot of things besides moving cars as quickly as possible. It is absolutely a model Cleveland's planners should be considering when building an arterial.

 

Now, you can say that this model is not what you have in mind for this specific road on the east side of Cleveland. That's fine. There are lots of options. However, in my opinion, most of them are worse.

 

The bottom line is that the new portion of the "Opportunity Corridor" is going to be an arterial road. Not a residential street. Not a "Main Street". There are already those kinds of streets in Kinsman/Fairfax.

 

An arterial can look and work like a freeway, or your strawman in Glendale, or plenty of other bad things (see much of eastern Chester Ave.). Or it can look and work like the street in Irvine. I certainly know which model I prefer.

 

It's pretty clear that they are building this road. With $300 million of our money. Shouldn't we insist they make it the best road it can be so that there is at least a small chance it lives up to its name?

 

(By the way, if you want a chuckle, pull up Zillow on some of the condos near the address above in Irvine... Yikes. That's Opportunity for you.)

 

 

Huh?  When?

 

The main difference seems to me that those who prefer sprawl aren't really prosletyzers. 

 

Yes, they prefer that the taxes they pay be spent in ways they prefer.

 

But they don't go around saying everyone should live their way.

 

Apparently it has been lost in the server crash.  Lucky for you I guess.  I remember typing half of a reply and then discarding it because I figured it wasn't even worth getting into an argument over.

 

Anyway...

 

I think you're completely off point about the proselytizing.  Suburban plans tend to eliminate any option other than the car, and this type of construction has been "proselytized" all over America for 70 years such that a huge swath of the population now lives in an area where they only have one realistic transportation options.  Urban development in the United States is nowhere near being in the position to eliminate options, but rather to PROVIDE options.  Very rarely do urban development plans eliminate the ability to drive an automobile, but very often suburban plans eliminate every mode of transportation EXCEPT for the automobile.  That is why I believe suburbanites are the "pushier" of the groups in wanting things to only work the way they like.

 

And since when have urban planners forced people to live a certain way?  Have you ever seen anyone on here advocating going into Westlake and tearing everything down and rebuilding it densely?

 

Well no one (here) is quite that impractical.  But what I do see brings us back to the thread topic.  People oppose the OC because it's not the kind of development they'd like to see in this area, when they really don't have any stake in the game beyond paying regular taxes.

 

Suburbanites are more oriented towards the places they live and work.  You don't see them criticizing the density of development downtown or in UC, though the opposite happens on a pretty regular basis.

Suburbanites are more oriented towards the places they live and work.  You don't see them criticizing the density of development downtown or in UC, though the opposite happens on a pretty regular basis.

 

Of course you do.  They "criticize" density by trying to plow wide roads through it and by pushing for tearing down buildings to make parking lots.

 

I have seen this a lot out west in newer areas in places like CA and NV...wide arterial roads lined with tricked up sound walls and landscaping that hide the subdivisions along the route.

 

Litening, this is what you had replied to...the "design pattern" in general.

 

This design pattern is very prevalent in some of the most highly planned and desirable places to live in the country.

 

So I was replying more to the design pattern than to your simple example.  I would say 95% of this pattern looks more like Arizona (hence metrocity's comment about barriers hiding the neighborhoods) than the one you are referring to.

 

However, I did later post a street view of Irvine.

 

At least they have crosswalks when the streets are cut off, but I'm not sure who in their right mind would actually believe cars would stop for them in this one:

 

http://goo.gl/maps/KNMfS

 

Sure, it's SLIGHTLY better than the example I posted.  But it still absolutely is foreboding to any mode of transportation other than the automobile.  Street View around that area and tell me how many pedestrians and/or bicyclists you see.  Without these, there is nobody using the bus or train, either.  Sure, you COULD walk on the little side roads, but nobody is going to use that crosswalk and play Frogger with 50 MPH traffic, which means they've been relegated to a 1 mi x 1 mi square of residential for their travels, since these arterials are everywhere.  If you want to see proof of the autocentric development these arterials ensure, just look at all of the commercial development.  Does it look like anything you could walk to?  No, they're all shopping plazas surrounded by seas of parking with the occasional outlot, also surrounded by a sea of parking.

 

I get that you think these arterials are necessary, but then how does a city like Chicago, with such a higher population density, get away with having very few of them?  It's because places like Irvine were designed to make it very easy to use of a car to get around, which requires even more roads to facilitate the car, which in turn further ensures that only a car may be used in a sort of vicious cycle.  That is NOT how I think we should be designing roads through Cleveland.

 

As to your ridiculous comment about condo prices in Irvine, I think there's many more factors at play there.  Or do you really believe we have the "Opportunity" to see home values like that if we build that exact same road through this area?

Suburbanites are more oriented towards the places they live and work.  You don't see them criticizing the density of development downtown or in UC, though the opposite happens on a pretty regular basis.

 

Of course you do.  They "criticize" density by trying to plow wide roads through it and by pushing for tearing down buildings to make parking lots.

 

 

And by externalizing the costs of sprawl from things that cause it (ie: cars) onto things that don't (property taxes, federal income taxes, etc). If you paid for the cost of stormwater run-off drainage systems, air pollution, defense of oil shipping lanes, etc when you filled up the tank of your car, I suspect many more opponents of density (and other alternatives to driving) would be much more supportive those things. But since driving exists outside the free market, we continue to over-rely on it and have our land uses shaped accordingly.

 

Then we wouldn't be worrying about the Opportunity Corridor. We'd be trying to figure out where to build all those new houses, workplaces and shopping in the city.

^all sounds good but even with 10x more density in Cleveland, I think we'd still be adding some new boulevards to get through the city.  Traffic patterns don't remain stagnant. 

This city already had roads and highways which were designed at a time when the population was near 1 million.  We have virtually no rush hour.  Why in the world do we need to spend so much money on new boulevards?  I thought you were fiscally conservative.

^all sounds good but even with 10x more density in Cleveland, I think we'd still be adding some new boulevards to get through the city.  Traffic patterns don't remain stagnant. 

 

this gets a bit at my concerns with the project - are they proposing to eliminate capacity anywhere else because of these changing traffic patterns?  it seems to me that if we need this blvd, that we should also be identifying

a roads or lane miles to take out of service.

 

lets say of the 3 mile project, 1 mile is an existing road that is bring improved.  ok, but this is also adding lanes, so there might be 2 or 3 total lane miles added.

then for the other 2 miles that are being added to the system at 2 lanes wide (4 lane miles total), there should be strong consideration of removing 4 lane miles of deteriorating or excess

capacity.  take a lane off carnegie and calm it because many will choose the OC now, same for chester.  remove some roads somewhere so that there isn't an increasing burden on a decreasing local population to pay to maintain the new and

existing infrastructure. 

 

i haven't studied the plan in great detail, and certainly it is perhaps easier said than done, but imo, we shouldn't be adding overall road capacity to a shrinking or slow growing region.

 

 

This city already had roads and highways which were designed at a time when the population was near 1 million.  We have virtually no rush hour.  Why in the world do we need to spend so much money on new boulevards?

 

Agreed, this road is not likely to improve the tax base sufficiently to pay for its construction or ongoing maintenance.  That should be part of the decision on whether or not to build it.

 

As others have pointed out, however, building this road is an excuse to clean up some contaminated properties for which funds for decontamination are otherwise unavailable.  So there are some gold nuggets in this    plan.  It's unfortunate that we won't spend the money to clean up these properties without building a new road.

Interesting thoughts on removing lane miles, since we are adding them for the OC project, but the math would never add up.  Not so long as you're strictly interested in the bottom line, overall cost.  It would be too expensive to tear up existing roads, even if they aren't needed.