@AJ I dont't disagree, and I fully support pressuring the stakeholders to make it the best possible plan.  For me that includes strengthening connections to the rapid transit lines that cross the area.

@MTS- Can you give me a few examples, other than greenfield sprawl sites, where all all of the development around an infrastructure project (road, bridge, train, airport or otherwise) was pre-planned?

 

The plan is rather simple from the stakeholders, and similar to KJPs maps.  Bring back industry to the industrial areas and bring back housing to the residential areas.

 

As for the promise of manufacturing based on STEM principles, I agree with the head of the Brookings Institution

 

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/25/204862376/a-metro-revolution-cities-and-suburbs-do-what-d-c-cant?ft=1&f=1008

 

 

You ignore my questions, now you ask me one?!

 

BRING BACK WHAT INDUSTRY?  WHERE ON ANY PLAN DO YOU SEE A PLAN FOR INDUSTRY?  WHERE?  WHERE?  WHERE??

 

There is no damn plan.  They only want to shove a highway throw an area full of poor people and call it progress!  I call it BS.

 

As I've stated before, these highways have divided out city before and this will continue to do so.

 

Full? Can you please find a section that is atleast more urban than Avon.

 

This is where I disagree.  So those people get paid for those homes.  Where are they going?  They wont have enough money to move into a better area, say the heights and pay the taxes and blend into the society of the heights.

 

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. states that the State (any government in the U.S.) can't take/expropriate a person's private property without giving them just compensation in return.  So these homeowners must get value for this highway.  Also, I'm only going on what's happened in the past here in Cleveland, notably in the Hough property clearance/relocations of the 80s and 90s: that people got financing or other city/state supports to move into new properties.  Way back when, in the 60s, my family's home too was threatened by the so-called Lee Freeway, but it was understood, at least what my Dad told us, that we'd be relocated to another home on the government's dime, which is consistent with the 1st Amendment.

We're both partisan and both on the same side.  I'm well aware that the last statewide figure to push for this was Ken Blackwell.  Like all policies, I'm trying to judge it on its merits, and I think it has some.  It has some issues too, as you and others have pointed out.  I'd prefer the same monies went into rail expansion first.  No doubt about it.  But I would not turn away monies for this road, because I believe it will be a net positive. 

 

Yes UC is growing but it has a long way to go before it matches its parallels in other cities, and its surrounding neighborhoods are a total wreck.  The current course has not been particularly successful overall.

 

But see where I differ with you, 327, is that these poor areas are being used as a means to ... dare we say ... conservative ends: that is cars, cars, cars, and more cars... You're a smart cookie, you know or should know that these OC folks could care less about the so-called "Forbidden Triangle"; they just want their land to build this highway through it, and their ONLY talking about this phantom development as a ruse to hold at bay the enemies that defeated (at the zero hour) the nefarious planners for previous I-490 extension projects: most notably the infamous Clark Freeway.

I don't think cars are the enemy, and I think casting them as the enemy does us little good.  I don't care what motives lie behind any particular infrastructure project, I only care what effects it will have. 

 

I believe the area in question needs drastic change at a structural level, I believe industry is the highest and best use for much of its empty land, and I believe this project could go a long way toward luring it.  That said, I don't believe it makes sense not to have some sort of plan.  Hell, the plan they made for the Euclid Corridor would be perfect for the OC, it was just an awful plan for where they put it.

 

This is where I disagree.  So those people get paid for those homes.  Where are they going?  They wont have enough money to move into a better area, say the heights and pay the taxes and blend into the society of the heights.

 

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. states that the State (any government in the U.S.) can't take/expropriate a person's private property without giving them just compensation in return.  So these homeowners must get value for this highway.  Also, I'm only going on what's happened in the past here in Cleveland, notably in the Hough property clearance/relocations of the 80s and 90s: that people got financing or other city/state supports to move into new properties.  Way back when, in the 60s, my family's home too was threatened by the so-called Lee Freeway, but it was understood, at least what my Dad told us, that we'd be relocated to another home on the government's dime, which is consistent with the 1st Amendment.

 

I thanks for that.

 

I remember my mom being upset about the Freeways as it would have made Lee Road an 8 lane highway and Fairfax destroy and why they rebuilt the school in its location.  Then when we moved to S. Park my mom was upset that it would destroy the Shaker Lakes.  I clearly remember being in first grade when the national parks presented Shaker Lakes landmark Status. 

 

The house I grew up in would not be there.  This makes me so sad.

 

That map screwed me up. North is to the right.

Well the only thing that seems for certain here is that this road will be built.  So with that in mind, how does one mitigate the negatives being discussed here and accentuate positives (if any).  What can be done to make this road work?

Well the only thing that seems for certain here is that this road will be built.  So with that in mind, how does one mitigate the negatives being discussed here and accentuate positives (if any).  What can be done to make this road work?

 

For one thing, hold the planners to EXACTLY what they said they'll do, that is make this road local with traffic lights and LIMIT it to the length they stated, feeding into E. 105.  Absolutely no longer.  If there's ANY talk of extending this road further (which some have fanaticized) into U. Circle, up to the Heights or along the N.S. all the way to I-90), there should be hell to pay.  Ditto for plans to build a branch off along the Blue-Green Lines to the Woodhill/Buckeye/Shaker intersection.  I know some people really want to open this Pandora's Box (right E. Roc?) but if this road is to built, we must limit this monster to exactly what has been proposed.  And NO FURTHER GRADE SEPARATIONS to make the road faster (see turning it into a true freeway, which is what many desire).  No way Jose!!

  If there's ANY talk of extending this road further  into U. Circle, up to the Heights or along the N.S. all the way to I-90, there should be hell to pay.  ...  No way Jose!!

That connection to I-90 died a long time ago when the highway-powers adopted the Innerbelt and Shoreway plans.

 

I work at  Landerhaven in Mayfield  and it occurred to be that I will have quit my job and will never get to use this "connection down Shaker" to downtown or the west side of Cleveland. I will be driving to the mountains instead.

I don't think cars are the enemy, and I think casting them as the enemy does us little good.  I don't care what motives lie behind any particular infrastructure project, I only care what effects it will have. 

 

I believe the area in question needs drastic change at a structural level, I believe industry is the highest and best use for much of its empty land, and I believe this project could go a long way toward luring it.  That said, I don't believe it makes sense not to have some sort of plan.  Hell, the plan they made for the Euclid Corridor would be perfect for the OC, it was just an awful plan for where they put it.

 

You come from a wrong premise: that is, Cleveland is somehow difficult to drive in, when in fact, it is among the easiest driving major cities/metro areas in the country.  Most commutes are 20-25 mins; people here stress out at half-hour commutes... Getting to-from CC or Univ. Circle is a snap.  Stop kidding yourself, development hasn't been retarded in the Central/Kinsman area because of the lack of this highway, but because the powers-that-be haven't wanted development there.  This road is a convenient rationalization for the poor condition of this neighborhood...

 

... and btw, there IS commercial development happening in this so-called "forgotten triangle: plants are expanding along Buckeye Road corridor and we know Orlando Bakery will soon expand upon the abandoned Van Dorn factory property -- none of these NEEDED this Opportunity Corridor!!

 

327, I don't hate cars; own one myself.  But I do think Cleveland is constantly shooting itself in the foot in bending over backwards to accommodate cars within urbanized Cleveland with actions such as: Steelyards (which further kills downtown's chance at any serious retail along with the W. 117 big boxes, which destroyed over 100 homes... Cleveland homes!!); the Market Square strip shopping across from WSM; the W.117-Clifton strip shopping plan; Tremont as an island neighborhood surrounded by freeways, Chagrin-Lee-Avalon's destroying street retail in favor of strip shopping in 1990... -- I could go on and on and on...  At some point, 327, we've got to draw the line or we will never have a serious chance for true connected urbanized walkable neighborhoods... This road is overkill and I wish you would recognize this.

Completely over dramatic.

 

The highway would have destroyed neighborhoods and demolished thousands of high quality housing. The OC will demolish a few houses, most of which are in TERRIBLE condition and are the only house on the street. If anything the state will buy those houses from the residents, giving them cash they never could have had because those houses were never going to sell. It gives them freedom.

 

From the owners, not the residents.  The owners will likely be overjoyed to sell.  Plus, Cleveland's Housing Court is grossly pro-tenant.

 

This isn't a highway.  Hell, IMO we'd be better off if it was as a region.  But even I recognize the area in question would not be.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. states that the State (any government in the U.S.) can't take/expropriate a person's private property without giving them just compensation in return.  So these homeowners must get value for this highway.  Also, I'm only going on what's happened in the past here in Cleveland, notably in the Hough property clearance/relocations of the 80s and 90s: that people got financing or other city/state supports to move into new properties.  Way back when, in the 60s, my family's home too was threatened by the so-called Lee Freeway, but it was understood, at least what my Dad told us, that we'd be relocated to another home on the government's dime, which is consistent with the 1st Amendment.

 

It's actually the Fifth Amendment, but that doesn't really change your point, which is valid.

 

Certainly any private property taken to build the OC will be compensated.  Indeed, at it's appraised value without the potential cleanup costs being deducted.  Some of that land likely has negative net worth.

 

You may find one or two property owners who object, but I won't be surprised if there are exactly none.

I don't think cars are the enemy, and I think casting them as the enemy does us little good.  I don't care what motives lie behind any particular infrastructure project, I only care what effects it will have. 

 

I believe the area in question needs drastic change at a structural level, I believe industry is the highest and best use for much of its empty land, and I believe this project could go a long way toward luring it.  That said, I don't believe it makes sense not to have some sort of plan.  Hell, the plan they made for the Euclid Corridor would be perfect for the OC, it was just an awful plan for where they put it.

 

You come from a wrong premise: that is, Cleveland is somehow difficult to drive in, when in fact, it is among the easiest driving major cities/metro areas in the country.  Most commutes are 20-25 mins; people here stress out at half-hour commutes... Getting to-from CC or Univ. Circle is a snap.  Stop kidding yourself, development hasn't been retarded in the Central/Kinsman area because of the lack of this highway, but because the powers-that-be haven't wanted development there.  This road is a convenient rationalization for the poor condition of this neighborhood...

 

... and btw, there IS commercial development happening in this so-called "forgotten triangle: plants are expanding along Buckeye Road corridor and we know Orlando Bakery will soon expand upon the abandoned Van Dorn factory property -- none of these NEEDED this Opportunity Corridor!!

 

327, I don't hate cars; own one myself.  But I do think Cleveland is constantly shooting itself in the foot in bending over backwards to accommodate cars within urbanized Cleveland with actions such as: Steelyards (which further kills downtown's chance at any serious retail along with the W. 117 big boxes, which destroyed over 100 homes... Cleveland homes!!); the Market Square strip shopping across from WSM; the W.117-Clifton strip shopping plan; Tremont as an island neighborhood surrounded by freeways, Chagrin-Lee-Avalon's destroying street retail in favor of strip shopping in 1990... -- I could go on and on and on...  At some point, 327, we've got to draw the line or we will never have a serious chance for true connected urbanized walkable neighborhoods... This road is overkill and I wish you would recognize this.

 

I think what 327 is saying is that if you even go as far as make cars out to be a somewhat necessary evil, you get perceived as making them the enemy, and that becomes making the majority of the population at least an adversary.  You won't get anywhere politically doing that.

There is a well stated thesis that we should not add more "lane miles" because it implies further road maintenance costs. Other than that, there is no well stated argument against O.C.

There is a well stated thesis that we should not add more "lane miles" because it implies further road maintenance costs. Other than that, there is no well stated argument against O.C.

 

Road maintenance means traffic constriction, so when traffic is already constricted, the maintenance gets put off as long as possible.  The need to maintain traffic also adds costs.

Even the densest communities still need roads; I could list off several versions of UC in other cities that are far more dense while at the same time much better-served by freeways.  In fact, I think freeway access has helped those neighborhoods achieve and maintain density because it better integrates them into their metros, as well as the rest of the US.  This serves two purposes: 1) people who choose to live there don't sacrifice access to diverse economic opportunities, and 2) businesses and institutions in that area gain more access to larger markets.  As to the notion that UC is easily accessible already, that's in the eye of millions of different beholders, and again, there are benchmarks.

 

Steelyard has nothing to do with this.  There's a difference between building roads and screwing up retail development.  Steelyard wasn't spawned by the Jennings Freeway, it was spawned by a decision to subsidize and pursue exactly that style of new development.  Far better choices could have been made with those resources, but that's about as separate as issues get.

Even the densest communities still need roads; I could list off several versions of UC in other cities that are far more dense while at the same time much better-served by freeways.  In fact, I think freeway access has helped those neighborhoods ...

  This serves two purposes: 1) people who choose to live there don't sacrifice access to diverse economic opportunities, and 2) businesses and institutions in that area gain more access to larger markets.  ...

(2.1) I am sure that a salesman calling on the Cleveland Clinic would prefer not to get off the freeway at Carnegie and poke along for forty blocks looking for Midtown.

People trying to sell to the Cleveland Clinic will do what it takes to get there. Nobody is saying "well, I'd sell my medical device to a billion dollar healthcare facility, but it takes 10 minutes too long to get there. So forget it"

Time is money.

And platitudes are meaningless. There isn't a medical sales company in the world that wouldn't move heaven and earth to sell to the Clinic. If that's the foundation upon which we're building this road, forget it.

Ohio is great place for business because of our highway connections to markets

You're f-ing with me, aren't you. I took the bait. Must get coffee.

I read the woeful lamentations of fifty year old planning decisions before I typed my remarks.

Interesting that an increasing number of cities are either halting urban road capacity expansions or outright banning them. I was just in Boston last week where I learned it is a state law that no new highways can be built inside the Route 128 loop. The last major road planned was to put I-95 into the core of Boston, meeting I-90 at Back Bay -- where my hotel was. All of the property was acquired for it. Instead, the state took that land and instead relocated Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, MBTA's Providence Line and Orange Line (which was an elevated railway north of Forest Hills) onto that right of way. Much of it was put into a subway near Back Bay.

 

The point being, this more urban-minded city is not doing projects like Opportunity Corridor anymore because it recognizes that cars -- in an urban environment -- don't improve the quality of life. In fact cars tend to degrade it. Maybe we should consolidate the Rapid lines into the Opportunity Corridor and not build the boulevard! Or maybe I should move to Boston?

If this road was proposed for any of your neighborhoods, you wouldn't want it.

 

This road is a waste and the maintenance costs will haunt us!

 

We have to keep pressure on the stakeholders to make sure the road is a "Complete and Green street"  with strong linkages to rail. 

 

KJP, If they don't follow your plan to move the rail, are there spots close to the new road that would make better stations than what is currently there?  Both Red and Blue lines?

We have to keep pressure on the stakeholders to make sure the road is a "Complete and Green street"  with strong linkages to rail. 

 

KJP, If they don't follow your plan to move the rail, are there spots close to the new road that would make better stations than what is currently there?  Both Red and Blue lines?

 

There will be no rail on this road.

KJP, If they don't follow your plan to move the rail, are there spots close to the new road that would make better stations than what is currently there?  Both Red and Blue lines?

 

Until there's a land use plan for this corridor or there's some major new private investment in it, I wouldn't make any suggestions other than what I've already proposed.

Even the densest communities still need roads; I could list off several versions of UC in other cities that are far more dense while at the same time much better-served by freeways.  In fact, I think freeway access has helped those neighborhoods ...

  This serves two purposes: 1) people who choose to live there don't sacrifice access to diverse economic opportunities, and 2) businesses and institutions in that area gain more access to larger markets.  ...

(2.1) I am sure that a salesman calling on the Cleveland Clinic would prefer not to get off the freeway at Carnegie and poke along for forty blocks looking for Midtown.

 

It will make it a lot easier for out of town patients to get there from the airport, though...

Clinic officials have told me they get many more people visiting patients than patients. Plus, the "in-and-out" traffic from visitors is much greater.

Clinic officials have told me they get many more people visiting patients than patients. Plus, the "in-and-out" traffic from visitors is much greater.

 

The same principle applies. 

If this road was proposed for any of your neighborhoods, you wouldn't want it.

I don' t live on a railroad track.

If this road was proposed for any of your neighborhoods, you wouldn't want it.

I don' t live on a railroad track.

That makes no damn sense!  NONE.

 

However, if you did liv eon a railroad track the infrastructure could be rehabilitated to move people throughout the city and region.

Most of the alignment is in that railroad corridor. This isn't like Napoleon busting apart Paris to make the streets suit him.

If this road was proposed for any of your neighborhoods, you wouldn't want it.

 

This road is a waste and the maintenance costs will haunt us!

 

If my neighborhood were the one in question, a lot of things would be different and it's hard to speculate how I'd feel.  Chances are I'd be very angry, not about this project, but about the conditions I live in. 

 

Your point about maintenance is well taken but hardly project-specific.  I use the same argument against most "streetscaping" proposals.  You have to keep pouring money into them forever or they look like crap.  To the extent this road would involve treelawns and such, same argument.

 

People trying to sell to the Cleveland Clinic will do what it takes to get there. Nobody is saying "well, I'd sell my medical device to a billion dollar healthcare facility, but it takes 10 minutes too long to get there. So forget it"

 

I'm thinking of medium to large scale manufacturing, and the amount of cartage that typically involves.  One key purpose of this road, I've always assumed, is to keep all that new truck traffic off the streets of the surrounding neighborhoods.  And when it comes to freight, time absolutely positively is money.  It is not possible to emphasize that concept enough.

Most of the alignment is in that railroad corridor. This isn't like Napoleon busting apart Paris to make the streets suit him.

 

NO it those who have making decision without consulting those that live there.  We've heard not one word for a resident.

Even the densest communities still need roads

 

This community already has a bunch of roads.

 

How many times do I have to say this?  It's not like anybody is talking about ripping roads up.  Plenty of people somehow already are able to make it to University Circle.  Enough so that it's thriving!  So why do we need ANOTHER road?

Time is money.

 

Then why don't we rip up the whole city and make a 50-lane freeway with a 90 MPH speed limit to get there?  Anything less costs these salesman money!

Ohio is great place for business because of our highway connections to markets

 

And the lack of criss-crossing highways is why nobody does business in Manhattan.

If this road was proposed for any of your neighborhoods, you wouldn't want it.

I don' t live on a railroad track.

That makes no damn sense!  NONE.

 

However, if you did liv eon a railroad track the infrastructure could be rehabilitated to move people throughout the city and region.

 

Huh?  I mean the road DOES closely follow railroad tracks and does not pass through too many homes.  I don't see this argument against the road so much, although it would be interesting to hear from people who will be forced to relocate by it (although that's an incredibly small number of people for a 2.7 mile road through an urban area due to the industrial nature and level of residential demolition of the area).

327, I don't hate cars; own one myself.  But I do think Cleveland is constantly shooting itself in the foot in bending over backwards to accommodate cars within urbanized Cleveland with actions such as: Steelyards (which further kills downtown's chance at any serious retail along with the W. 117 big boxes, which destroyed over 100 homes... Cleveland homes!!); the Market Square strip shopping across from WSM; the W.117-Clifton strip shopping plan; Tremont as an island neighborhood surrounded by freeways, Chagrin-Lee-Avalon's destroying street retail in favor of strip shopping in 1990... -- I could go on and on and on...  At some point, 327, we've got to draw the line or we will never have a serious chance for true connected urbanized walkable neighborhoods... This road is overkill and I wish you would recognize this.

 

We agree here, as we often do, on the key principles.  But the examples you're listing are all retail developments, while the project at hand is overwhelmingly industrial in focus.  This road is for trucks at least as much as it's for cars.  UC's concentration of biotech should help create adjacent job centers in biotech manufacturing, but the surrounding infrastructure is not properly arranged for that.  It was arranged at a time when manufacturing was a completely different ballgame.  To a certain extent, we can't double down on the existing layout of these old-school industrial neighborhoods because they're functionally obsolete.  That point doesn't apply to downtown, or to Shaker, or Lakewood, or even Tremont, the way it applies to this part of town.

Most of the alignment is in that railroad corridor. This isn't like Napoleon busting apart Paris to make the streets suit him.

 

NO it those who have making decision without consulting those that live there.  We've heard not one word for a resident.

 

Pro or con.  It doesn't look like there's too many of them actually.  Also, even if this wasn't happening, how many have lived there for a time period equivalent to the time between now and construction beginning?

If this road was proposed for any of your neighborhoods, you wouldn't want it.

 

This road is a waste and the maintenance costs will haunt us!

 

If my neighborhood were the one in question, a lot of things would be different and it's hard to speculate how I'd feel.  Chances are I'd be very angry, not about this project, but about the conditions I live in. 

 

Your point about maintenance is well taken but hardly project-specific.  I use the same argument against most "streetscaping" proposals.  You have to keep pouring money into them forever or they look like crap.  To the extent this road would involve treelawns and such, same argument.

 

People trying to sell to the Cleveland Clinic will do what it takes to get there. Nobody is saying "well, I'd sell my medical device to a billion dollar healthcare facility, but it takes 10 minutes too long to get there. So forget it"

 

I'm thinking of medium to large scale manufacturing, and the amount of cartage that typically involves.  One key purpose of this road, I've always assumed, is to keep all that new truck traffic off the streets of the surrounding neighborhoods.  And when it comes to freight, time absolutely positively is money.  It is not possible to emphasize that concept enough.

 

This might be a good location for another intermodal, actually.  But yeah, a road designed so that 53 foot trailers can traverse it without making a bunch of tight turns can't hurt matters.

 

Industry is this area's future, if it has one.  Trying to build a New Urbanist Paradise isn't going to fly, and even if some of same can be built, it will only transfer the blight to the areas the people come from.  Which won't be Aurora or Brunswick,

This might be a good location for another intermodal, actually.  But yeah, a road designed so that 53 foot trailers can traverse it without making a bunch of tight turns can't hurt matters.

 

Industry is this area's future, if it has one.  Trying to build a New Urbanist Paradise isn't going to fly, and even if some of same can be built, it will only transfer the blight to the areas the people come from.  Which won't be Aurora or Brunswick,

 

Meanwhile, I thought the Euclid Corridor made perfect sense as a New Urbanist Paradise... but it was decided that our city's main thoroughfare-- Millionaire's Row-- was too far gone for any such thing, so we should be happy to get light manufacturing there... even though we'd just rebuilt the road to feature a block-by-block mass transit system that was clearly designed to service a New Urbanist Paradise. 

 

But here... in what has always been the worst part of town, interspersed with heavy industry and logistical infrastructure, soaked through with chemicals... here we should hold out for ideal high-density residential and retail.

This might be a good location for another intermodal, actually.  But yeah, a road designed so that 53 foot trailers can traverse it without making a bunch of tight turns can't hurt matters.

 

Industry is this area's future, if it has one.  Trying to build a New Urbanist Paradise isn't going to fly, and even if some of same can be built, it will only transfer the blight to the areas the people come from.  Which won't be Aurora or Brunswick,

 

Meanwhile, I thought the Euclid Corridor made perfect sense as a New Urbanist Paradise... but it was decided that our city's main thoroughfare-- Millionaire's Row-- was too far gone for any such thing, so we should be happy to get light manufacturing there... even though we'd just rebuilt the road to feature a block-by-block mass transit system that was clearly designed to service a New Urbanist Paradise. 

 

But here... in what has always been the worst part of town, interspersed with heavy industry and logistical infrastructure, soaked through with chemicals... here we should hold out for ideal high-density residential and retail.

 

The places now that are if not paradises, are urbanist friendly, were they for the most part planned?  Was Tremont's growth planned?  Little Italy, well its history isn't one progressive planners wish to discuss, though the results really can't be matched in this area.  Except, perhaps, by Tremont.

The places now that are if not paradises, are urbanist friendly, were they for the most part planned?  Was Tremont's growth planned?  Little Italy, well its history isn't one progressive planners wish to discuss, though the results really can't be matched in this area.  Except, perhaps, by Tremont.

 

Most of the city and inner ring were planned as TOD, before it was called that.  Before it was trains it was oxcarts and carriages, but the structure is really no different.  There's a certain organic "urban plan" that's pretty much the same around the world and throughout history, for communities of all shapes and sizes.  The only sort of development that doesn't follow said plan is sprawl.  So to that extent, those neighborhoods you list were indeed planned, if not in today's more formal sense.

 

Keeping industry separate from everything else is usually a part of that plan.  Cleveland was such a boom town that this rule was sometimes ignored, resulting in some poorly planned areas like the one we're talking about.  To the extent possible, it would be wise to separate industrial activity and traffic from everything else, which is why this road isn't supposed to be thoroughly integrated into the neighborhood.

 

The places now that are if not paradises, are urbanist friendly, were they for the most part planned?  Was Tremont's growth planned?  Little Italy, well its history isn't one progressive planners wish to discuss, though the results really can't be matched in this area.  Except, perhaps, by Tremont.

 

Most of the city and inner ring were planned as TOD, before it was called that.  Before it was trains it was oxcarts, but the structure is really no different.  There's a certain organic "urban plan" that's pretty much the same around the world and throughout history, for communities of all shapes and sizes.  The only sort of development that doesn't follow said plan is sprawl.  So to that extent, those neighborhoods you list were indeed planned, if not in today's more formal sense.

 

 

I know what you mean, but my question (and it is a serious question) is was there a planning-based effort to turn Tremont into the kind of neighborhood it is today?  Or did it sort of grow into that role?

If this road was proposed for any of your neighborhoods, you wouldn't want it.

 

This road is a waste and the maintenance costs will haunt us!

 

If my neighborhood were the one in question, a lot of things would be different and it's hard to speculate how I'd feel.  Chances are I'd be very angry, not about this project, but about the conditions I live in. 

 

Your point about maintenance is well taken but hardly project-specific.  I use the same argument against most "streetscaping" proposals.  You have to keep pouring money into them forever or they look like crap.  To the extent this road would involve treelawns and such, same argument.

 

People trying to sell to the Cleveland Clinic will do what it takes to get there. Nobody is saying "well, I'd sell my medical device to a billion dollar healthcare facility, but it takes 10 minutes too long to get there. So forget it"

 

I'm thinking of medium to large scale manufacturing, and the amount of cartage that typically involves.  One key purpose of this road, I've always assumed, is to keep all that new truck traffic off the streets of the surrounding neighborhoods.  And when it comes to freight, time absolutely positively is money.  It is not possible to emphasize that concept enough.

 

This might be a good location for another intermodal, actually.  But yeah, a road designed so that 53 foot trailers can traverse it without making a bunch of tight turns can't hurt matters.

 

Industry is this area's future, if it has one.  Trying to build a New Urbanist Paradise isn't going to fly, and even if some of same can be built, it will only transfer the blight to the areas the people come from.  Which won't be Aurora or Brunswick,

 

On this we agree. And if that's the plan, show it to me with something more than empty promises, and I'll be fine with this (well, less in a tizzy than I am now...I still think we can leverage existing infrastructure...)

 

However, I don't know that there's any central planning for developing post road. Certainly not cooperatively between all interested parties. Anecdotally, I was speaking with a guy a couple months ago that works for a food distributor where the road is going. The road is actually going right past their front doorstep. Close enough that they would have to reconfigure how the trucks come in and where the loading docks are. The logical plan is for them to utilize an adjacent vacant lot as a turnaround area, however, the local councilman is stopping that because he wants to turn that lot into a park, leaving the company with no real solution to how their trucks are going to access the building.  These guys are literally going to end up stuck in between a road and a greenspace.

Industry is this area's future, if it has one. 

 

I hope so, but there's always another low-cost labor country for us to exploit.

 

Trying to build a New Urbanist Paradise isn't going to fly[/color]

 

That's like saying a balanced diet isn't going to fly. Or exercising isn't going fly. Or living healthy isn't going to fly. A new urbanist city is the only city that works. Yes, we like to enjoy a treat now and then, and cars are a transportation treat. But when live on nothing but treats, our quality of life decays and the body fails. Cities perform at peak efficiency only when it is designed at a human scale.