The Red Line is not convenient or even a viable option for a ton of people in the region who could benefit from the OC.

 

Who are you talking about?  Because if you're talking about West Siders, they can park at a West Side Red Line stop and either ride straight through to the rebuilding UC-Cedar Glen Station or the soon-to-be relocated UC-Little Italy station.  To get to the Clinic, they can transfer to the Health Line at Tower City for a direct ride to CC's front door.  Where is the inconvenience?  There's no OC currently and many people are already using these transit options to get to CWRU, University Hospital, Uptown, Little Italy and many places in between... and, if you haven't noticed, University Circle is the hottest investment ticket in the region for multiunit housing, while UC rents are skyrocketing -- under EXISTING conditions. So where's crying need for the OC?... Are you say people can't use transit or are they just closed minded and lazy?

Not to mention,  workers/visitors can get off at Quincy East 105 to head to the clinic buildings.

This sounds more and more like NIMBY every day.  We can't make city and regional planning decisions on a block by block basis.  That's what we've been doing and look where it's gotten us.  Connecting UC to the freeway network will benefit the region, the city, and the east side in particular.  It could also lead to more industrial development in an area that needs some, and where other development alternatives are tougher because of all the brownfields.         

 

New paving, landscaping, bike trails... none of that is going to help these neighborhoods the OC would pass through.  Not in any meaningful sense.  It will still be the same area with the same problems.  There is concentrated poverty, crime, abandonment, no retail and no employment base outside UC/CCF.  A new road isn't going to fix all that any more than a few bike paths will, but at least the road addresses a major regional need.  This notion that every neighborhood has to get theirs is a big part of what's holding us back as a city.  The best thing for Central and Fairfax right now, IMO, would be to take University Circle to the next level. 

 

This is where I disagree with you, 327. I don't see this road as a major regional need. I haven't heard the argument that there are people who aren't investing in UC, or working in UC, or going to UC, because they can't get there easily. In fact, I would say there is currently as high a level of investment in UC and awareness of the treasure UC is as there ever has been.

 

A regional need I do see is a catalyst for continued investment in Cleveland, particularly in an area that has not seen any in a great number of years. My concern remains that a simple road, particularly a road designed to expedite traffic to the freeway system, does nothing to aid that...by itself. Hence my request that either 1) we route the OC through existing roadways to open up the possiblity that investment in some of the neglected properties might occur, creating new business / employment opportunities, or 2) we tie the development of this new road to incentives to bring businesses in along that road. This doesn't just benefit the immediate neighborhood, it opens up a whole new area of the city for potential new investment.

 

But that's not going to happen magically with just the road (IMO). Just the road gives us just commuters speeding along, never even blinking an eye at the surroundings.

 

Do we know for a fact that the money can't be used for creating an opportunity corridor using existing roadways? I don't know, and I'm not sure where to look.

As CLVNDR already wrote, why is there a need to bring more cars and congestion to the area instead of using the existing bus, BRT and rail lines?

 

Ok, so now this is where I disagree with you, MTS (and why I'm still on the fence with regard to this project). The fact is that the bus and rail lines are not driving any new investment into this area. If we're just speaking to moving people, I agree that we have sufficient infrastructure. But I am not against promoting imrovements that make driving more desirable through this area. More transportation options are better than less.

 

And as others have argued, a large infrastructure project like this does have the potential (again, IMO, and IME) to spur like private investment. If the state / local govts are willing to put this money in place, then it encourages other people to come in and see what all the fuss is about. But I would hope that would enhance the existing built environment, not cause further neglect as the new investment follows this new route. 

 

But there is non proof or documentation that housing, schools, retail will be built nor how it will help current residents.  Correct?

This sounds more and more like NIMBY every day.  We can't make city and regional planning decisions on a block by block basis.  That's what we've been doing and look where it's gotten us.  Connecting UC to the freeway network will benefit the region, the city, and the east side in particular.  It could also lead to more industrial development in an area that needs some, and where other development alternatives are tougher because of all the brownfields.         

 

New paving, landscaping, bike trails... none of that is going to help these neighborhoods the OC would pass through.  Not in any meaningful sense.  It will still be the same area with the same problems.  There is concentrated poverty, crime, abandonment, no retail and no employment base outside UC/CCF.  A new road isn't going to fix all that any more than a few bike paths will, but at least the road addresses a major regional need.  This notion that every neighborhood has to get theirs is a big part of what's holding us back as a city.  The best thing for Central and Fairfax right now, IMO, would be to take University Circle to the next level. 

 

This is where I disagree with you, 327. I don't see this road as a major regional need. I haven't heard the argument that there are people who aren't investing in UC, or working in UC, or going to UC, because they can't get there easily. In fact, I would say there is currently as high a level of investment in UC and awareness of the treasure UC is as there ever has been.

 

A regional need I do see is a catalyst for continued investment in Cleveland, particularly in an area that has not seen any in a great number of years. My concern remains that a simple road, particularly a road designed to expedite traffic to the freeway system, does nothing to aid that...by itself. Hence my request that either 1) we route the OC through existing roadways to open up the possiblity that investment in some of the neglected properties might occur, creating new business / employment opportunities, or 2) we tie the development of this new road to incentives to bring businesses in along that road. This doesn't just benefit the immediate neighborhood, it opens up a whole new area of the city for potential new investment.

 

But that's not going to happen magically with just the road (IMO). Just the road gives us just commuters speeding along, never even blinking an eye at the surroundings.

 

Do we know for a fact that the money can't be used for creating an opportunity corridor using existing roadways? I don't know, and I'm not sure where to look.

As CLVNDR already wrote, why is there a need to bring more cars and congestion to the area instead of using the existing bus, BRT and rail lines?

 

Ok, so now this is where I disagree with you, MTS (and why I'm still on the fence with regard to this project). The fact is that the bus and rail lines are not driving any new investment into this area. If we're just speaking to moving people, I agree that we have sufficient infrastructure. But I am not against promoting imrovements that make driving more desirable through this area. More transportation options are better than less.

 

And as others have argued, a large infrastructure project like this does have the potential (again, IMO, and IME) to spur like private investment. If the state / local govts are willing to put this money in place, then it encourages other people to come in and see what all the fuss is about. But I would hope that would enhance the existing built environment, not cause further neglect as the new investment follows this new route. 

 

But there is non proof or documentation that housing, schools, retail will be built nor how it will help current residents.  Correct?

 

You are correct. There is non proof. Which brings me back to my earlier post bolded above.

 

Edit: I just re-read your post, and I think we may be on different pages. If we move ahead with the OC, I don't think the play is to make the surrounding area residential friendly, with new homes, schools, etc. Look at the study area in freethink's post a couple pages back. It's in between two NS lines, the Red line, Blue / Green line. The street infrastructure is not nearly as built as through alternate routes (by design I presume), so not as neighborhoody as surrounding areas. I think if you build the OC, you promote the location to distributors, and others who would benefit from streamlined access to the freeway, and access to the rail lines. Build up that area as light assembly/ warehouse, etc., and hopefully you spin off with improved employment in the surrounding areas.

 

If there is so much opposition on this board about the corridor why is there so much political support (Kasich, Mayor Jackson) and support from the RTA?

Because elected officials like posing for pictures in their suits with shiny shovels in their hands and poorly fitting hard hats on their heads so that in the next election they can claim credit for the project getting built.

Now you say they support it so they can claim credit for this project. What if this project fails enormously and nothing gets fulfilled? Now what happens is those same politicians and business leaders are stuck with the label of being a supporter of ones of the largest failed projects in city history. It's really like dealing with a double edged sword.

I'm a consistent booster of mass transit but in its current local state it can't be all things to all people.  UC is well served by transit but the value of that is limited by the reach of the system feeding it, which is pretty sparse outside of UC and downtown.  So yes, I really do think there's a need for a direct connection to the freeway system. 

 

I think it was discussed way back in this thread that a better truck route into UC from 490 would also help with developing industry in the affected area.  Since part of that area's problem is an over-abundance of under-utilized industrial land, it really doesn't seem like a bad fit. 

The Red Line is not convenient or even a viable option for a ton of people in the region who could benefit from the OC.

Now you're speaking in general terms?  So people who live near the 79 street stations don't work in UC or downtown?  Who are these "ton" of people. Why seperate residents from all visitors and workers to UC, Downtown and beyond.  Just because someone may not disembark at 79 street, why should the station remain the only station on the eastside not to be rehabbed?  Again, poor people have no voice.  "They're poor, they don't need a nice station" blah, blah, blah

 

Also the same could be made for East 105, which is the closest station to CCF.  Why do people need a road to UC/CCF when the University Cedar station is being rehabed, East 105/Quincy is a short bus ride or walk to the Clinic.

 

Instead of building a road thru "nowhere" fix up Quincy as there are residents and businesses on the north end of Quincy like Karamu.  East 105 street can be fixed up and housing retail added and current bus service increased.  BRT on E. 105/Woodhill I would embrace as it's a north/west route.

 

Again, this road is a waste!

 

 

 

What are you talking about? I never even mentioned the East 79th station.  And I never said those people who live there don't work in UC! ??

 

I mentioned it.  I suggested shutting it down and running buses (frequency depending on use) down the OC between the 55th and 105th rapid stations.

 

What I did say is that telling people to take the red line makes no sense since it doesn't serve them. People who live in any of the cities to the south or the southwest don't have good access to the red line. People on here act as if the OC will only benefit those who live on the west side where the red line runs. That is not true.

 

This has been said repeatedly, indeed the only people whose access to UC/CC is not improved are those to the north and east.  Plus, I think some forget here is that people "can" do a lot of things they don't wish to, and will find alternatives to when they can.

 

I do think the best future for this area is industrial, not residential.  Provided something can be done about CERCLA.

My biggest fear about the OC is that it will choke UC with cars, causing even more streets to be widened, and more parking lots to be created.  UC is doing great right now as a transit-friendly, walkable neighborhood.  The more we tip the scales toward being overly auto-friendly, the less incentive there is to build dense structures in UC and the more incentive there is to make the roads faster and wider so people can live further away and still get there.  In other words, UC could become more suburban and lose everything that currently makes it desirable.  Is it really progress if we turn a thriving urban neighborhood into a thriving suburban neighborhood?  Why is it OK that suburbanites can ram their traffic down the throat of urban neighborhoods?  How do you think they would respond to urbanites ramming the rapid into their towns?  Oh, wait we already know.  Berea, Solon, and Pepper Pike have already fought to keep the rapid out.

My biggest fear about the OC is that it will choke UC with cars, causing even more streets to be widened, and more parking lots to be created.  UC is doing great right now as a transit-friendly, walkable neighborhood.  The more we tip the scales toward being overly auto-friendly, the less incentive there is to build dense structures in UC and the more incentive there is to make the roads faster and wider so people can live further away and still get there.  In other words, UC could become more suburban and lose everything that currently makes it desirable.  Is it really progress if we turn a thriving urban neighborhood into a thriving suburban neighborhood?  Why is it OK that suburbanites can ram their traffic down the throat of urban neighborhoods?  How do you think they would respond to urbanites ramming the rapid into their towns?  Oh, wait we already know.  Berea, Solon, and Pepper Pike have already fought to keep the rapid out.

 

Well said.

 

 

The Red Line is not convenient or even a viable option for a ton of people in the region who could benefit from the OC.

Now you're speaking in general terms?  So people who live near the 79 street stations don't work in UC or downtown?  Who are these "ton" of people. Why seperate residents from all visitors and workers to UC, Downtown and beyond.  Just because someone may not disembark at 79 street, why should the station remain the only station on the eastside not to be rehabbed?  Again, poor people have no voice.  "They're poor, they don't need a nice station" blah, blah, blah

 

Also the same could be made for East 105, which is the closest station to CCF.  Why do people need a road to UC/CCF when the University Cedar station is being rehabed, East 105/Quincy is a short bus ride or walk to the Clinic.

 

Instead of building a road thru "nowhere" fix up Quincy as there are residents and businesses on the north end of Quincy like Karamu.  East 105 street can be fixed up and housing retail added and current bus service increased.  BRT on E. 105/Woodhill I would embrace as it's a north/west route.

 

Again, this road is a waste!

 

 

 

What are you talking about? I never even mentioned the East 79th station.  And I never said those people who live there don't work in UC! ??

 

I mentioned it.  I suggested shutting it down and running buses (frequency depending on use) down the OC between the 55th and 105th rapid stations.

 

What I did say is that telling people to take the red line makes no sense since it doesn't serve them. People who live in any of the cities to the south or the southwest don't have good access to the red line. People on here act as if the OC will only benefit those who live on the west side where the red line runs. That is not true.

 

This has been said repeatedly, indeed the only people whose access to UC/CC is not improved are those to the north and east.  Plus, I think some forget here is that people "can" do a lot of things they don't wish to, and will find alternatives to when they can.

 

I do think the best future for this area is industrial, not residential.  Provided something can be done about CERCLA.

 

There is no proof that road will create any sizable investment along the corridor.

 

There is simply  the original university circle access project prettied up to appear more palatable to the community it runs through.

 

There is a very effective campaign by the local foundation cartel to push this project, and one by one politicians have fallen in line with the mayor and the greater Cleveland chamber of commerce, AKA greater Cleveland partnership to move this project forward.

 

Even Slavic village councilman who was against this at first h's fallen into line.  It all smell very fishy to me. 

 

No one wants to piss either the mayor or the GCP off by opposing this.

 

Any one wanting to stand against this project there is a Facebook group and soon a twitter

 

We are hopping to organize and ask  the same questions being asked here.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/606909012674914/

http://www.ideastream.org/soi/entry/54254

 

That is the link to the sound of ideas discussion where Anthony Brancatelli speaks to why he initially opposed the OC when it was a highway, but with the design now he is for it.  He also points out that manufacturing has grew in his ward, and he is very confident it will grow with this road.

 

Steven Litt was also on the program, he is also fully behind it.

 

My biggest fear about the OC is that it will choke UC with cars, causing even more streets to be widened, and more parking lots to be created.  UC is doing great right now as a transit-friendly, walkable neighborhood.  The more we tip the scales toward being overly auto-friendly, the less incentive there is to build dense structures in UC and the more incentive there is to make the roads faster and wider so people can live further away and still get there.  In other words, UC could become more suburban and lose everything that currently makes it desirable.  Is it really progress if we turn a thriving urban neighborhood into a thriving suburban neighborhood?  Why is it OK that suburbanites can ram their traffic down the throat of urban neighborhoods?  How do you think they would respond to urbanites ramming the rapid into their towns?  Oh, wait we already know.  Berea, Solon, and Pepper Pike have already fought to keep the rapid out.

 

THANK YOU!!

 

 

 

There is no proof that road will create any sizable investment along the corridor.

 

There is simply  the original university circle access project prettied up to appear more palatable to the community it runs through.

 

There is a very effective campaign by the local foundation cartel to push this project, and one by one politicians have fallen in line with the mayor and the greater Cleveland chamber of commerce, AKA greater Cleveland partnership to move this project forward.

Even Slavic village councilman who was against this at first h's fallen into line.  It all smell very fishy to me. . 

 

No one wants to piss either the mayor or the GCP off by opposing this.

 

Any one wanting to stand against this project there is a Facebook group and soon a twitter

 

We are hopping to organize and ask  the same questions being asked here.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/606909012674914/

 

Very insightful, there IS something fishy going on.  When the Slavic Village councilman suddenly flip-flopped in favor of this, despite the fact that it will plow through homes right in the OC's path -- something he raised in protest ... initially, makes me wonder what's really up here...

My biggest fear about the OC is that it will choke UC with cars, causing even more streets to be widened, and more parking lots to be created.  UC is doing great right now as a transit-friendly, walkable neighborhood.  The more we tip the scales toward being overly auto-friendly, the less incentive there is to build dense structures in UC and the more incentive there is to make the roads faster and wider so people can live further away and still get there.  In other words, UC could become more suburban and lose everything that currently makes it desirable.  Is it really progress if we turn a thriving urban neighborhood into a thriving suburban neighborhood?  Why is it OK that suburbanites can ram their traffic down the throat of urban neighborhoods?  How do you think they would respond to urbanites ramming the rapid into their towns?  Oh, wait we already know.  Berea, Solon, and Pepper Pike have already fought to keep the rapid out.

 

Then University Circle needs to show some foresight and leadership and make sure they have a plan for this growth. 

 

They're not going to stop people from Avon Lake or Brecksville from driving to their jobs at UH or the Clinic.

 

But UC and Urban Ohio's lobbying arm CAN make a difference in making sure the cars are integrated into a high-density neighborhood, including parking decks that feature street-level retail, added residential, etc.

 

There is no proof that road will create any sizable investment along the corridor.

 

There is simply  the original university circle access project prettied up to appear more palatable to the community it runs through.

 

There is a very effective campaign by the local foundation cartel to push this project, and one by one politicians have fallen in line with the mayor and the greater Cleveland chamber of commerce, AKA greater Cleveland partnership to move this project forward.

Even Slavic village councilman who was against this at first h's fallen into line.  It all smell very fishy to me. . 

 

No one wants to piss either the mayor or the GCP off by opposing this.

 

Any one wanting to stand against this project there is a Facebook group and soon a twitter

 

We are hopping to organize and ask  the same questions being asked here.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/606909012674914/

 

Very insightful, there IS something fishy going on.  When the Slavic Village councilman suddenly flip-flopped in favor of this, despite the fact that it will plow through homes right in the OC's path -- something he raised in protest ... initially, makes me wonder what's really up here...

 

Nothing fishy.  He probably did some followup and found out his residents weren't really opposed, and that the route would knock out some blight. 

My biggest fear about the OC is that it will choke UC with cars, causing even more streets to be widened, and more parking lots to be created.  UC is doing great right now as a transit-friendly, walkable neighborhood.  The more we tip the scales toward being overly auto-friendly, the less incentive there is to build dense structures in UC and the more incentive there is to make the roads faster and wider so people can live further away and still get there.  In other words, UC could become more suburban and lose everything that currently makes it desirable.  Is it really progress if we turn a thriving urban neighborhood into a thriving suburban neighborhood?  Why is it OK that suburbanites can ram their traffic down the throat of urban neighborhoods?  How do you think they would respond to urbanites ramming the rapid into their towns?  Oh, wait we already know.  Berea, Solon, and Pepper Pike have already fought to keep the rapid out.

 

In other words, be friendly to the people that can fuel the next step.

 

Density is a mantra around here sometimes, and I think some forget that it's not really popular among Americans in general. 

 

UC is full of enough of what people see as the great things about cities to maintain energy without imposing the not so great things. 

 

Indeed, it's a microcosm of Cleveland in that regards.

 

A city, particularly a Great Lakes City, that can thrive on the things that make cities great while embracing that innate American desire for elbow room can guarantee its vibrancy for the next century and beyond.

^ that's where we disagree. I think density is huge and something we severely lack. And it has hurt us and will continue to do so.

^ that's where we disagree. I think density is huge and something we severely lack. And it has hurt us and will continue to do so.

 

As I said. that's the consensus here.  I'm the iconoclast.

 

However, I suspect the majority sees things my way.  If you're trying to sell a specific project, it helps to keep that in mind.

Yeah, I agree. The argument that 'nobody wants to live in cities because they're so crowded' sounds a little flawed. We already have an abundance of elbow room, and will for the next century. A little density is called for, particularly where it's already proven successful.

^ that's where we disagree. I think density is huge and something we severely lack. And it has hurt us and will continue to do so.

 

As I said. that's the consensus here.  I'm the iconoclast.

 

However, I suspect the majority sees things my way.  If you're trying to sell a specific project, it helps to keep that in mind.

Imagine that. People generally viewing things the same way on an enthusiast forum.

 

It makes sense to funnel money into a growing demographic. And that demographic isn't you, even if you are the majority for now. The OC is throwing good money after bad.

My biggest fear about the OC is that it will choke UC with cars, causing even more streets to be widened, and more parking lots to be created.  UC is doing great right now as a transit-friendly, walkable neighborhood.  The more we tip the scales toward being overly auto-friendly, the less incentive there is to build dense structures in UC and the more incentive there is to make the roads faster and wider so people can live further away and still get there.  In other words, UC could become more suburban and lose everything that currently makes it desirable.  Is it really progress if we turn a thriving urban neighborhood into a thriving suburban neighborhood?  Why is it OK that suburbanites can ram their traffic down the throat of urban neighborhoods?  How do you think they would respond to urbanites ramming the rapid into their towns?  Oh, wait we already know.  Berea, Solon, and Pepper Pike have already fought to keep the rapid out.

 

Well said.

 

Fully agree we can't be making neighborhoods less walkable. But automobile traffic alone doesn't do that in my experience. Don't we need areas to become choked with cars in order for mass transit to become a more viable option?

Fully agree we can't be making neighborhoods less walkable. But automobile traffic alone doesn't do that in my experience.

We tear down buildings for parking all the time. Zoning also has very antiquated rules for X # of parking spaces per square foot of space. Automobile traffic is the primary reason areas become less walkable. The two do not mix.

 

Don't we need areas to become choked with cars in order for mass transit to become more necessary?

 

What do you suppose is more likely? (A) UC will lobby for infrastructure improvements for transit to alleviate traffic issues, or (B) they will build outwards with more parking to accommodate the additional cars.

^ that's where we disagree. I think density is huge and something we severely lack. And it has hurt us and will continue to do so.

 

As I said. that's the consensus here.  I'm the iconoclast.

 

However, I suspect the majority sees things my way.  If you're trying to sell a specific project, it helps to keep that in mind.

 

Just use the term "vibrant" instead of "density" so Erocc doesn't have to make this density comment over and over and over.

Don't we need areas to become choked with cars in order for mass transit to become more necessary?

 

What do you suppose is more likely? (A) UC will lobby for infrastructure improvements for transit to alleviate traffic issues, or (B) they will build outwards with more parking to accommodate the additional cars.

 

I honestly have no idea. Hoping for A obviously.

Yeah, I agree. The argument that 'nobody wants to live in cities because they're so crowded' sounds a little flawed. We already have an abundance of elbow room, and will for the next century. A little density is called for, particularly where it's already proven successful.

 

Yeah, there’s that old joke about how “no one goes there any more, it’s too crowded”.  I think people realize what that means.  The people they prefer to be around (which can really mean anything) have been replaced by others, or simply can’t be found because there are so many random people.  Linguistically it makes no sense, but everyone knows what’s meant.

 

Density in an urban area is a lot like snow in Northeast Ohio.  While there are enthusiasts, for most people it’s something that’s endured rather than embraced.  People will put up with it based on the desirability  of the event or attraction.  And yes, just like snow in NE Ohio, most astute people realize that a certain amount of density is needed to make a lot of the good things about cities happen.

 

That said, I really think urbanists make a huge mistake touting density as a virtue for its own sake.  All you have to do is look at any setting where there is not one central point of attraction.  Hell, even a bus or train.  People spread out. 

 

LOL on the “vibrancy” comment, but you are kind of making my point.  A city which can develop and maintain vibrancy without extraneous density is more likely to maintain the former.

^Except density = people and without people you can't have anything of vibrancy or permanency. Cities require density because they require people to support more businesses/jobs/residences/etc. per square mile in order to maintain their architectural and spatial form.

 

And none of Ohio's cities are what any urbanist would call too dense. There are pockets of high density, but we haven't even come close to reaching the insane densities that are still quite comfortable to millions of people in larger cities across the country (not even going to mention other countries to eliminate any discussion on vast differences in culture).

 

Cleveland, Cincy, Columbus, etc. are all still cheap enough that people who don't necessarily make a ton of money can still get a decent sized apartment/condo/townhome/whatever to gain what you refer to as elbow room when they're in the confines of their private residence. And when out in public there aren't millions of people trying to cram onto the sidewalk like in places like NYC or Chicago. In fact there are quite a large amount of places that suffer from far too few people to the point where they have become uncomfortable due to the lack of density one expects from a city center.

 

Any discussion about density in Ohio's cities in relation to future vibrancy and development should be pointed towards the 'in favor of' direction, not the 'I need more elbow room' direction.

Let's just call this for what it is: An Opportunity (for westsiders to get into and out of University Circle more quickly) Corridor.  Nothing more and nothing less. 

 

Needless to say I believe that there is little reason why anyone not living in a very concentrated/limited area of Cuyahoga County to support this atrocity.

People do desire density, and people also desire space. Everyone does not think the same. But look at some of the most popular cities in North America. New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Toronto, etc. They all have very popular dense neighborhoods that people are flocking to. In Toronto they can't build towers fast enough. This is where the Ohio and the Midwest cities suffers. We don't have any truely dense neighborhoods, and that is one reason we have  fallen behind.

ERocc, if density is so despised by people, what explains the absurd $/sqft for a home in the old, dense part of Chagrin Falls?

What Erocc says is probably true, but wholly irrelevant.  Just because the majority prefers fast food, doesn't mean there's no market for sit-down restaurants. It's a big, diverse market out there and the region should be able to offer compelling neighborhood products that appeal to as much of it as possible. Not having more quality options for those who prefer density (who are disproportionately well educated and highly productive) is a major regional weakness. I'm mostly indifferent about the OC at this point, but priority uno is what jam40 jeff said above about not screwing up UC.

ERocc, if density is so despised by people, what explains the absurd $/sqft for a home in the old, dense part of Chagrin Falls?

 

Some people like it.  Some people also like snow.

 

But most people don't seem to, unless there is a need for it due to a center of attention/special attraction.

 

Look at how people congregate (or don't) in any area without a central focus. 

 

 

I still don't believe most people, maybe even not a majority of people, prefer sprawl.  It's just cheaper right now for various reasons and they'll live with the upsides and give up their dream of living in a place like Hudson or Chagrin Falls or Alexandria, Virginia.  But that discussion is probably better left for the Suburban Sprawl thread.

A city, particularly a Great Lakes City, that can thrive on the things that make cities great while embracing that innate American desire for elbow room can guarantee its vibrancy for the next century and beyond.[/color]

 

So even if most people like sprawl, there can't be nice dense areas in America just because the majority has to rule everything?  What about the cities I mentioned above?  What about the fact that University Circle is ALREADY THRIVING, despite not cowtowing to this supposed preference of the overwhelming majority of Americans?  Can't we leave well-enough alone?  Didn't we learn from the past mistakes of ramming wide roads (whether they're called highways or parkways or expressways or freeways or boulevards or just 6 lane arterials?) through walkable neighborhoods?

Then University Circle needs to show some foresight and leadership and make sure they have a plan for this growth. 

 

Encouraging more vehicles doesn't necessarily mean growth.  If 2,000 new vehicles travel to University Circle a day and it siphons off 1,500 transit riders, I think the added congestion will do much more harm than the 500 new people travelling to University Circle will do it good.

My biggest fear about the OC is that it will choke UC with cars, causing even more streets to be widened, and more parking lots to be created.  UC is doing great right now as a transit-friendly, walkable neighborhood.  The more we tip the scales toward being overly auto-friendly, the less incentive there is to build dense structures in UC and the more incentive there is to make the roads faster and wider so people can live further away and still get there.  In other words, UC could become more suburban and lose everything that currently makes it desirable.  Is it really progress if we turn a thriving urban neighborhood into a thriving suburban neighborhood?  Why is it OK that suburbanites can ram their traffic down the throat of urban neighborhoods?  How do you think they would respond to urbanites ramming the rapid into their towns?  Oh, wait we already know.  Berea, Solon, and Pepper Pike have already fought to keep the rapid out.

 

Now that I've stated my fear, I'll state my hope for the Opportunity Corridor, since it is pretty much inevitable the project is going to happen.

 

I hope the OC is merely a waste of money.  Anything better than that will be more than I expecting.  And what I am fearing is worse (a waste of money that also damages a thriving neighborhood or at least changes its complexion in a way that many of those that live near it don't want to see).  But by saying I hope it is merely a waste of money means that I hope it just siphons off some traffic from Chester and Carnegie and makes some suburbanites a little happier, and maybe even brings a few more in, all while not siphoning off hardly any transit riders.  I hope the road is no worse than a Chester.  I don't know how much (if anything) it will do for the area (I don't think Chester did too much for Hough), but if it does bring in some new business and helps out the neighborhood, then that would be a great added bonus in my book.

 

I also hope that much of the increased traffic simply ends up in Cleveland Clinic parking garages.  The Clinic is already an auto-centric zone, I can't see this road doing much more damage to it than the Clinic has already done (compare old photos of E. 105th and Euclid to new ones to see what I'm talking about).  However, what I would hate to see is this road have an adverse effect on the congestion and danger to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders east of E. 105th, where the environment has been (and continues to be) designed in a more walkable, urban fashion.  I hope that any talk of rewidening or raising speed limits on Euclid or other roads in that area is met with as much resistance as plowing a 6-lane "boulevard" through the heart of Little Italy would be.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/07/ohio_turnpike_money_would_pay.html#incart_river_default

 

Ohio Turnpike money would pay for most of the $334 million Opportunity Corridor

By Tom Breckenridge, The Plain Dealer

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Money from the Ohio Turnpike would cover most of the $334 million cost of Opportunity Corridor, under a draft funding list released Thursday by advisers to the Ohio Department of Transportation.

Look at how people congregate (or don't) in any area without a central focus.

 

That idea underlies my whole pull-not-push theory of urban development.  People will ultimately go where they want to go.  Our best moves are to provide attractions that might stimulate congregation, like UC, and to maximize the accessibility of these attractions.  I see the OC largely as a means to that end. 

 

It's wonderful that UC is highly accessible via mass transit.  There you have two great things that go great together.  But that doesn't come close to covering the current spectrum of accessibility.  I say current because if we were to achieve Trek-style teleportation, I would want a teleporter array in UC.  Whatever the state of the art might be, we need to meet it.  Right now cars are the primary mode of transport for most Americans. 

 

I'm not worried that an influx of cars will somehow ruin UC, because other cities have their own versions of UC, with much better freeway access, and carmageddon simply hasn't happened.

It would be nice if we could get this kind of unified public official push for rail transit expansion.  But that's pie-in-the-sky for Cleveland... I shake my head when I think about how great the Euclid corridor would have been -- with dense, TOD and vibrant, walkable neighborhoods along it's route to Windermere -- had we gone ahead and built the damn Dual Hub subway.  Nope, not enough political and civic guts... But building this urban highway is all the transportation expansion we're capable of (with the bizarre situation of having a Transit Chief who runs a rail network and, yet, is against any expansion of it), despite renewed interest in walkable urban neighborhoods -- and no, this thinly veiled commuter roadway for West Siders will NOT create such areas. 

Building a subway would have never made sense. Too expensive for this areas ridership. The density is not there. Plus we have one of the lowest rail riderships in the country. Our current system is based off of a park and ride system and TOD is not really happening here, especially as a first thought. It's more like, " Lets build in University Circle by CWRU and UH." Then rta or the media claims it is TOD for the Healthline and the developer gladly goes along with that as it is good press.

 

I would have strongly preferred streetcars, as they would probably have lower operating costs than bus and less frequent replacement costs.  Plus if done right you might have been able to tie it in to the current rail system. But streetcars would face the same issues that makes the Healthline sucks. Terrible traffic signals that cause delays and bunching.

Why does pro-density have to mean anti-car?  The concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and if we're going to move toward density, we kinda have to work with what we have in order to get there.  It's one thing to be against surface parking, but as noted above, vertical parking decks with street level retail don't seem nearly so bad.  Maybe something like that should be seen as a necessary component of this project.

Why does pro-density have to mean anti-car?  The concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and if we're going to move toward density, we kinda have to work with what we have in order to get there.  It's one thing to be against surface parking, but as noted above, vertical parking decks with street level retail don't seem nearly so bad.  Maybe something like that should be seen as a necessary component of this project.

 

I agree.  Necessary (evil) component is a good way of putting it.    Cleveland will never be Chicago or NYC when it comes to density.  But we can effectively manage what we have to make it a good compromise for those who want to live and work in the neighborhood.

Where was this desire to compromise over the last 50 years as buildings were torn down for surface lots and parking garages without street level retail? The pendulum is starting to swing back towards an interest in urban living with less of an emphasis on cars, and suddenly people living in the suburbs want to "compromise".

 

Why does pro-density have to mean anti-car?  The concepts aren't mutually exclusive, <snip>

 

That is true in theory. In practice, however, there has been exactly 1 parking garage built recently in Cleveland with street level retail. The others built over the last 10 years simply create more dead spots -- Pinnacle building in the Warehouse District, Horseshoe Casino garage, several in UC. Hell, University Hospitals is building a new garage right now set back from the street without retail.

 

To answer your question directly, the money to make density and cars coexist simply isn't there. We are talking underground parking or properly built garages.

Much of the City of Cleveland is car-dependent, so this can hardly be solved by hating on suburbanites.  I don't believe a single thing can be solved that way.  I think we'll have a lot more success if we focus on which policies are bad, rather than which people. 

 

As for the practice you speak of, that rests upon policy decisions made within the City of Cleveland.  Enormous sums of public money have been spent on developments which are the polar opposite of dense and walkable.  There are other options for that money and there always have been.

Anybody who doesn't think Cleveland is already incredibly car friendly is blind. Good lord, look at the existing infrastrucure. Cleveland is one of the easiest commuting cities I've ever been to. Our rush hours add MAYBE 20 minutes to an existing commute (short of an accident, bad storm, etc.). Half the time when I drive to a place in the city I can park right in front of where I'm going. Try doing THAT in NYC or Chicago.

 

There is an abundance of car access and parking availability. I'm not concerned at all about making commute times any better, because they're already fantastic. The only pro argument for the OC that truly holds any water is that which uses it to leverage other economic development. Everything else is supurfluous superfluous [there, happy?] supply.

The future look of Cleveland's OC?  Courtesy of Opportunity Parkway, just south of Downtown Akron.  This is kinda what I picture Cleveland will end up with.  Take a walk down it on google maps:

 

 

 

 

The road in Cleveland has 12 intersections maybe more, 8 lights, a grassy "landscaped" median (which is good for pedestrian crossing), sidewalks and a bike path.

The road in Cleveland has 12 intersections maybe more, 8 lights, a grassy "landscaped" median (which is good for pedestrian crossing), sidewalks and a bike path.

 

So this road is built.  The adjacent neighborhood will receive no enhancement, correct??

 

Having said that, would you walk, ride in this neighborhood today? 

 

Punch and anyone in favor of this project, in your heart of hearts, would you walk, ride on the OC when/if completed?

^If I worked there and lived near the red line, sure.  That is why I want it built

 

As I understand it, from looking at the ODOT maps, it looks like a few of the side streets gets rebuilt, and of course the intersections will be new roads.

 

 

Which side streets need to be rebuilt?

^If I worked there and lived near the red line, sure.  That is why I want it built

 

Not just if you lived there, in general.  After all, this road is suppose to be a connector and good for the entire city, right?

Much of the City of Cleveland is car-dependent, so this can hardly be solved by hating on suburbanites.  I don't believe a single thing can be solved that way.  I think we'll have a lot more success if we focus on which policies are bad, rather than which people. 

 

As for the practice you speak of, that rests upon policy decisions made within the City of Cleveland.  Enormous sums of public money have been spent on developments which are the polar opposite of dense and walkable.  There are other options for that money and there always have been.

 

Umm, that's what we are doing.  Taking a thriving area and trying to make it more auto-friendly will likely only make it worse.  That is bad policy.

Anybody who doesn't think Cleveland is already incredibly car friendly is blind. Good lord, look at the existing infrastrucure. Cleveland is one of the easiest commuting cities I've ever been to. Our rush hours add MAYBE 20 minutes to an existing commute (short of an accident, bad storm, etc.). Half the time when I drive to a place in the city I can park right in front of where I'm going. Try doing THAT in NYC or Chicago.

 

There is an abundance of car access and parking availability. I'm not concerned at all about making commute times any better, because they're already fantastic. The only pro argument for the OC that truly holds any water is that which uses it to leverage other economic development. Everything else is supurfluous superfluous [there, happy?] supply.

 

Exactly.