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

 

My fingers typed First when they should have typed Fifth Amendment, where its due process clause prevents a govt. taking from private citizens by the Feds, while the 14th applies the same to the States... Thanks for the correction.

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.

 

Well Said!! .... Last I looked, Boston's doing quite a bit better than Cleveland in terms of commerce and downtown + neighborhood density and vibrancy -- though we are Rapidly improving ... The T is an awesome LRT, HRT, commuter train & bus network, ... while most agree that Boston's Big Dig freeway system sucks... I guess that last factor would send some Clevelanders, like the OC supporters, into conniptions.

 

 

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.

 

Amen.  There's a little to much Sim-City idealism at work here.    While we all debate the merits of this project, let's not forget this is supposed to prop up our new largest industry:  healthcare.    I'm all for rail and anti-car.  But let's face it, if it keeps UC and the Clinic growing, we need to do this.  What's most important is that the influx of cars is carefully managed and doesn't overstep the growth in residential and retail in the area also.

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.

 

It depends on who the councilman is, and if he will have the same one after November.

 

The best approach is to invite him in for a meeting.  Tour the plant, and if he has any constituents working there, have them available.  Have him watch the trucks coming in and out, get him involved.  There’s tons of photo ops here and while saying he got a park built makes for nice campaign brochures, saying he helped save neighborhood jobs makes better ones. 

 

If this doesn’t work, get some of the OC boosters that will have influence on him involved.  This is exactly what the road is supposed to support.  Maybe he just has to back his opponent, though that’s risky. 

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.

 

That all depends on the meaning of the word "works".  I've heard vegetarians make a similar argument.  Most of us reject it. 

 

My point all along is that a city that can accomodate and even embrace sprawl while maintaining energy and relevance is in tune with the clear preferences of the majority.

^ good first point

 

Second one I don't agree with though. Just look at housing prices. In New York, attractive high density living is extremely expensive. Same can be said for countless other cities. The demand is high and the supply is low, thus extremely high prices. I do think that the market for average density is not that high. In cleveland we have very low density urban neighborhoods. Some have some demand, which is good, but it is not nearly what it needs to be and their  low density will prevent future growth. Think of some of the most expensive, non mansions, areas to live. Many are extremely high density. Some are not, but like I've said before, not everyone is going to agree on something so major.

 

And yes, a city filled with Strongsville and Mentor density probably is better than what many are now, including cleveland. Abandonent, decay, and vacant lots/blocks/neighborhoods are a killer. The city and downtown would both be stronger if most of it looked and acted like those cities. But that's the cheap route to go. Building high density neighborhoods would improve the city at a much higher level.

^ good first point

 

Second one I don't agree with though. Just look at housing prices. In New York, attractive high density living is extremely expensive. Same can be said for countless other cities. The demand is high and the supply is low, thus extremely high prices. I do think that the market for average density is not that high. In cleveland we have very low density urban neighborhoods. Some have some demand, which is good, but it is not nearly what it needs to be and their  low density will prevent future growth. Think of some of the most expensive, non mansions, areas to live. Many are extremely high density. Some are not, but like I've said before, not everyone is going to agree on something so major.

 

I've never said there's no market for density.  A very significant portion of the public desires it, and this includes many affluent people.  Indeed, in many cases the price of their housing reflects the cost of maintaining the style "to which they are accustomed" in high density surroundings.  Many of the things these people are "buying" include extra living space, security, and privacy.  Things which are largely taken for granted (though not neccesarily present) in the suburbs.

 

My point has always been that a city that can accommodate and embrace both high and low density will have a huge advantage.

 

And yes, a city filled with Strongsville and Mentor density probably is better than what many are now, including cleveland. Abandonent, decay, and vacant lots/blocks/neighborhoods are a killer. The city and downtown would both be stronger if most of it looked and acted like those cities. But that's the cheap route to go. Building high density neighborhoods would improve the city at a much higher level.

 

Here's where we probably disagree vis a vis the topic at hand.  The Cleveland area already has a few high density neighborhoods.  It's better to expand those if the demand exists.  Trying to build a new one in a former industrial area currently plagued with crime and blight is likely doomed to failure.  If it succeeds, it will almost certainly be at the expense of the current areas.

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.

 

Amen.  There's a little to much Sim-City idealism at work here.    While we all debate the merits of this project, let's not forget this is supposed to prop up our new largest industry:  healthcare.    I'm all for rail and anti-car.  But let's face it, if it keeps UC and the Clinic growing, we need to do this.  What's most important is that the influx of cars is carefully managed and doesn't overstep the growth in residential and retail in the area also.

 

I'm not sure I buy that this road will help UC or the Clinic grow any faster than they already are.  I'm actually afraid it will stunt the growth and/or shift the growth into something much less desirable for an urban area.

 

I know I keep beating a dead horse, but I'm really tired of the growth argument, because it insinuates that the area is stagnating right now.  UC and the Clinic are already booming, I see no way that this road will accelerate that.  The only benefit I think that may be had from this road is that we may get some new light industrial in a barren section of the east side between UC and downtown.

My point all along is that a city that can accomodate and even embrace sprawl while maintaining energy and relevance is in tune with the clear preferences of the majority.[/color]

 

It's always dangerous to claim that you speak for the majority or, worse, know what's in people's heads. I have no idea what's in people's head or what they want. And their actions don't often provide insight into their beliefs and values. I believe that many people are sheep and will follow the crowd. And those with the will and the means who do have values for doing something a certain way can get those who don't have values (or the will to push back from their own value perspective) will be the sheep in that instance. Are most people sheep? I don't know. But I do believe many people are -- enough to make marketing and political lobbying multi-billion-dollar businesses. And when people with will and means say we're going to develop cities in a new way, then that's what will happen. My job is to make sure that people with will and means hear my perspective and information on cities and transportation systems should be developed the way I and my employer prefer. Most Average Joes don't even understand there are different forms of land use planning to choose from or how they correlate with different transportation modes. But the captains of industry do, especially when high-density land uses make it unpopular or inconvenient for people to buy and use cars...

 

How can we forget General Motors' and Shell Oil Co's plans for cities laid out at the future Futurama exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair? Or Ford's? Or Studebaker's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mission accomplished?

 

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.

 

Amen.  There's a little to much Sim-City idealism at work here.    While we all debate the merits of this project, let's not forget this is supposed to prop up our new largest industry:  healthcare.    I'm all for rail and anti-car.  But let's face it, if it keeps UC and the Clinic growing, we need to do this.  What's most important is that the influx of cars is carefully managed and doesn't overstep the growth in residential and retail in the area also.

 

I'm not sure I buy that this road will help UC or the Clinic grow any faster than they already are.  I'm actually afraid it will stunt the growth and/or shift the growth into something much less desirable for an urban area.

 

I know I keep beating a dead horse, but I'm really tired of the growth argument, because it insinuates that the area is stagnating right now.  UC and the Clinic are already booming, I see no way that this road will accelerate that.  The only benefit I think that may be had from this road is that we may get some new light industrial in a barren section of the east side between UC and downtown.

[/quot

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.

 

Amen.  There's a little to much Sim-City idealism at work here.    While we all debate the merits of this project, let's not forget this is supposed to prop up our new largest industry:  healthcare.    I'm all for rail and anti-car.  But let's face it, if it keeps UC and the Clinic growing, we need to do this.  What's most important is that the influx of cars is carefully managed and doesn't overstep the growth in residential and retail in the area also.

 

I'm not sure I buy that this road will help UC or the Clinic grow any faster than they already are.  I'm actually afraid it will stunt the growth and/or shift the growth into something much less desirable for an urban area.

 

I know I keep beating a dead horse, but I'm really tired of the growth argument, because it insinuates that the area is stagnating right now.  UC and the Clinic are already booming, I see no way that this road will accelerate that.  The only benefit I think that may be had from this road is that we may get some new light industrial in a barren section of the east side between UC and downtown.

 

Its not about growing UC, it is about growing a sparsely used huge area of land next to UC.  I very passionately believe that this road will bring manufacturing into the industrial area.

I also expect some housing to infill just because it will be an easy commute into the Clinic (by car or bike)

 

When the funding is in place, I will probably sound more like an opponent than a proponent.  The plan has gone a very long way from an extension of 490 to a true boulevard, but that is not to say it can't go farther.

 

The clinic is obviously a major stakeholder in this road.  By pushing them to push the state to make the road as Complete and Green as possible, with substantial "connectivity" to existing or new RTA rapid transit, the area could blossom as a viable neighborhood.

 

 

Its not about growing UC, it is about growing a sparsely used huge area of land next to UC.  I very passionately believe that this road will bring manufacturing into the industrial area.

I also expect some housing to infill just because it will be an easy commute into the Clinic (by car or bike)

 

When the funding is in place, I will probably sound more like an opponent than a proponent.  The plan has gone a very long way from an extension of 490 to a true boulevard, but that is not to say it can't go farther.

 

The clinic is obviously a major stakeholder in this road.  By pushing them to push the state to make the road as Complete and Green as possible, with substantial "connectivity" to existing or new RTA rapid transit, the area could blossom as a viable neighborhood.

 

 

• This are is not next to UC
  
• You belive it will being manufacturing, but there is no plan for building of place of employment
  
• You expect, but there is no plan for housing or investment in the neighborhood
  
• When funding is in place....
  
• What plan??
  
• When has the Clinic public said they support the road?  Why aren't they investing in this road as they did with the HL?  I suspect it would be a conflict of interest.
  

 

As KJP says about "sheep", the way you wrote this, that is how you appear to me.  You've bought into something that has no plan or vision what-so-ever.

 

This HIGHWAY is a joke.

I have worked in manufacturing, and have become successful in it.  I have opened manufacturing plants all over the south, staffed with many people with never had a job before.  I have taught them how to weld, and to operate industrial machinery.  These jobs took people out of poverty and into middle class life.

 

The same thing can be done in Cleveland

 

I currently volunteer with the state and Nortech to bring jobs to Cleveland. 

 

I know how these things work.

 

Have you ever stepped foot into a manufacturing facility?

I have worked in manufacturing, and have become successful in it.  I have opened manufacturing plants all over the south, staffed with many people with never had a job before.  I have taught them how to weld, and to operate industrial machinery.  These jobs took people out of poverty and into middle class life.

 

The same thing can be done in Cleveland

 

I currently volunteer with the state and Nortech to bring jobs to Cleveland. 

 

I know how these things work.

 

Have you ever stepped foot into a manufacturing facility?

 

Don't ask me questions, when you haven't answer mine from the past.

 

None of what you wrote has any relation to the OC, as there is no plan for any of that.

 

Its not about growing UC, it is about growing a sparsely used huge area of land next to UC.  I very passionately believe that this road will bring manufacturing into the industrial area.

I also expect some housing to infill just because it will be an easy commute into the Clinic (by car or bike)

 

When the funding is in place, I will probably sound more like an opponent than a proponent.  The plan has gone a very long way from an extension of 490 to a true boulevard, but that is not to say it can't go farther.

 

The clinic is obviously a major stakeholder in this road.  By pushing them to push the state to make the road as Complete and Green as possible, with substantial "connectivity" to existing or new RTA rapid transit, the area could blossom as a viable neighborhood.

 

 

• This are is not next to UC
  
• You belive it will being manufacturing, but there is no plan for building of place of employment
  
• You expect, but there is no plan for housing or investment in the neighborhood
  
• When funding is in place....
  
• What plan??
  
• When has the Clinic public said they support the road?  Why aren't they investing in this road as they did with the HL?  I suspect it would be a conflict of interest.
  

 

As KJP says about "sheep", the way you wrote this, that is how you appear to me.  You've bought into something that has no plan or vision what-so-ever.

 

This HIGHWAY is a joke.

 

I'm not sure if you ever answered my question, might have missed it in all of the posts, but would you apply the same standards to all public projects? Transit, medical Mart, etc? Because most likely those would all get turned down too under those criteria. If not, you really can't pick and choose based on what you prefer.

 

And can you lay off the personal insults. I'm on my phone right now so I can't see who your response was to, but they are doing nothing wrong by agreeing with a project that many agree with. This forum is not for calling people out about there differing opinions on projects. If you think he's an idiot and a fool for buying into it, great. Just keep it to yourself and leave the forum to actual productive discussions.

MTS you speak as if they're just extending 490 to E105, which clearly isn't happening.  This very-much-not-a-highway is in itself a plan to attract manufacturing.  I agree that additional efforts are needed, but modernizing the transport infrastructure is a threshold matter.  You can hate highways and highway access all you want, but they are essential to modern manufacturing.  That is more true now that it was 50 years ago and there is no going back.

MTS you speak as if they're just extending 490 to E105, which clearly isn't happening.  This very-much-not-a-highway is in itself a plan to attract manufacturing.  I agree that additional efforts are needed, but modernizing the transport infrastructure is a threshold matter.  You can hate highways and highway access all you want, but they are essential to modern manufacturing.  That is more true now that it was 50 years ago and there is no going back.

 

This a highway to East 105. It's a pig with lipstick on it, but it's still a pig!

Folks, I'm going to keep this thread locked until there's some new developments and to give you all a chance to simmer down. The insulting posts were deleted.

 

The Brains Behind The Opportunity Corridor Didn't Even Buy The Domain Name

Posted by Eric Sandy on Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM

 

The oft-maligned Opportunity Corridor promises a reinvigorated sense of white privilege in town, planting a supposed cherry on top of the forced abandonment leveled against some of Cleveland's poorest neighborhoods. Opportunity!

 

It's an opportunity lots of wealthy people are really enjoying. But all that hand-wringing and mustache-twirling takes up so much time that they totally passed up a good opportunity to complement the propaganda on Cleveland.com with a slightly more transparent outfit. ...Like a website of their own.

 

Interesting illustration: Terry Egger, CEO of the Plain Dealer Publishing Co., has had his hands in the Opportunity Corridor for years. It's unsurprising, really, that both of those endeavors have fallen flat in the digital sphere. The Plain Dealer just can't get it right, and opportunitycorridor.com was left on the shelf from the project's inception.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2013/08/06/the-brains-behind-the-opportunity-corridor-didnt-even-buy-the-domain-name

 

 

Opportunity Corridor opponents seize opportunity by snagging opportunitycorridor.com domain name: Michael K. McIntyre's Tipoff

By Michael K. McIntyre

on August 06, 2013 at 5:01 PM, updated August 06, 2013 at 7:54 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Lawyer Andrew Samtoy recently decided to log on to GoDaddy.com on the off chance that proponents of the Opportunity Corridor road project linking I-490 to University Circle didn't snap up the obvious domain name for a Web site.

 

"I was shocked," said Samtoy, who spent $28.68 snapping up the very available opportunitycorridor.com, opportunitycorridor.org, theopportunitycorridor.com and theopportunitycorridor.org.

 

He contacted Angie Schmitt, a blogger and founder of Rustwire.com and perhaps the road's most vocal opponent. Her grassroots group, Clevelanders for Transportation Equity, snapped up opportunitycorridor.com to spread its message about the potential ills of the $324 million project.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/tipoff/index.ssf/2013/08/opportunity_corridor_opponents.html

Further proof this is being spearheaded by some old dudes thinking it's 1965.

August 2: The Cool Cleveland writer Contradicts himself:

If you believe that line of malarkey I’ve got some prime swampland to sell you — cheap. This road, if it proceeds as planned, will cut a wide swath through a large area of inner city Cleveland like a gash. But then, there really isn’t a lot of value left to destroy in this area of town, since a scurrilous act of planned abandonment took care of that many years ago.

 

August 1: Cites Vancouver as brilliant for not adding a "traffic lane for cars" since the 1970s. When I was there, my coworkers would wait at the bar for an hour after work and drink rather than endure grid lock. The reason Vancouver is growing is because everybody who can moves out of the frozen land of Winnipeg.

 

Woe is Cle.

This just in: cities have traffic congestion. Out.

Simplistic

August 2: The Cool Cleveland writer Contradicts himself:

If you believe that line of malarkey I’ve got some prime swampland to sell you — cheap. This road, if it proceeds as planned, will cut a wide swath through a large area of inner city Cleveland like a gash. But then, there really isn’t a lot of value left to destroy in this area of town, since a scurrilous act of planned abandonment took care of that many years ago.

 

I understand your point because the writer hints that the land is worth a lot with his "wide swath" comment.  But his statement is absolutely true: this land has been purposely abandoned/underdeveloped by commercial interests and pols for decades who focused redevelopment on other areas: Ohio City, Tremont, Detroit-Shoreway -- even Hough (which, conveniently is adjacent to rapidly expanding prize jewel: Cleve Clinic ... where pre tell will all those young docs, nurses and interns live?).... The value has been driven down to the point where, now, after all those years of deliberate neglect, here comes the magic bullet that will SAVE YOU and show you residents WE CARE.  Here's the magic highway that will cure all your problems you 80-90% non-car owners you... 

Simplistic

 

Cities are inherently crowded places. Trying to uncrowd them while keeping them functional has been the never-ending, unreachable and counter-productive goal of those who don't like crowds for hundreds of years. My suggestion:  if you don't like crowds, stay away from cities and leave them to those of us who enjoy the energy, innovation, economic vibrancy and entertainment that comes from urban crowds.

 

Oh, BTW, we will soon learn more about the design aspects of this boulevard which includes noise walls lining it. Question is, how does this make the road accessible to pedestrians, bikers and transit riders? And are these walls being sought to protect the residents from noise, or driver's from "the neighborhood." Maybe we should change the name of the neighborhood from "Forgotten Triangle" to "Invisible Triangle".....

My point all along is that a city that can accomodate and even embrace sprawl while maintaining energy and relevance is in tune with the clear preferences of the majority.[/color]

 

It's always dangerous to claim that you speak for the majority or, worse, know what's in people's heads. I have no idea what's in people's head or what they want. And their actions don't often provide insight into their beliefs and values. I believe that many people are sheep and will follow the crowd. And those with the will and the means who do have values for doing something a certain way can get those who don't have values (or the will to push back from their own value perspective) will be the sheep in that instance. Are most people sheep? I don't know. But I do believe many people are -- enough to make marketing and political lobbying multi-billion-dollar businesses. And when people with will and means say we're going to develop cities in a new way, then that's what will happen. My job is to make sure that people with will and means hear my perspective and information on cities and transportation systems should be developed the way I and my employer prefer. Most Average Joes don't even understand there are different forms of land use planning to choose from or how they correlate with different transportation modes. But the captains of industry do, especially when high-density land uses make it unpopular or inconvenient for people to buy and use cars...

 

How can we forget General Motors' and Shell Oil Co's plans for cities laid out at the future Futurama exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair? Or Ford's? Or Studebaker's?

 

 

That’s a common argument for the crowd that wants to “nudge’ (or even shove) people into living the way they think we should:  people are manipulated by private sector advertising anyway.  It breaks down when one considers how many advertising campaigns have failed:  from Edsel to New Coke to attempts to phase out various fashions to the Lone Ranger movie.  Advertising can be effective, but only to a point.  Government action doesn’t have such a restraint on it.  Look how long it took to get rid of wildly unpopular laws like Prohibition and the 55 MPH speed limit.  Also, consider the unintended consequences of such.  Failed ad campaigns rarely have them.

 

The application to the OC is that this is something that has enough political support to get paid for.  Building (from scratch) a high density high interaction transit-friendly neighborhood does not.  Both are subsidized, in the sense that most government action is.  Since the government is (more or less) reflective of the priorities of the people that voted for it, what gets paid for will be what’s more popular.

 

The OC represents a genuine effort to do something politically popular enough to get funded that represents a change for the neighborhood it traverses.  Looking around said area, it almost has to be an improvement.

And the anti-urban crowd has worked just as hard to forcibly un-do thousands of years of organically nurtured urbanism to make urban living so untenable that we have no choice but to live the way they want so they can sell more cars and fossil fuels. This argument works both ways, E Rocc. So let the best social engineer win.

 

Yes, driving past and/or having to walk/bike around 14-foot-high walls is an improvement  :roll:

 

 

 

Wow, I thought you were just joking about the noise walls. That's pretty f*cked up.

Wow, I thought you were just joking about the noise walls. That's pretty f*cked up.

 

No, I'm not joking. And sorry, but I had to edit your message to keep workplace web filters from blocking UrbanOhio. Please refrain from using foul language -- or at least swear creatively. ;)

Wait.

 

Noise walls?

 

WTF?

 

Well as someone that's been sitting on the fence about this, noise walls may just help me make up my mind about it. If I'd heard that before I'd have been opposed to this much earlier.

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. 

 

But my view toward Central/Fairfax/Kinsman is very different, based on different circumstances.  The city's original organic arrangement put industry here, and lower-class housing too close to it, which limits our choices in reviving the area.  There is no particular track record of successful urbanity in this area; even at its best it was the worst part of town for clear structural reasons.

 

This road seems geared toward accomodating the needs of modern industry.  The benefits of better connecting UC with the near west side as well as the rest of the metro is just icing on that cake.  The tradeoff is that an utterly disfunctional part of town will have an additional road through it.  I'm willing to make that exchange.

And the anti-urban crowd has worked just as hard to forcibly un-do thousands of years of organically nurtured urbanism to make urban living so untenable that we have no choice but to live the way they want so they can sell more cars and fossil fuels. This argument works both ways, E Rocc. So let the best social engineer win.

 

Yes, driving past and/or having to walk/bike around 14-foot-high walls is an improvement  :roll:

 

Those are on actual freeways, where pedestrian access is forbidden.  This is not a freeway.

 

Where exactly will there be "noise walls" on the OC?  In the Cleveland Clinic area?  Other than that, they don't make sense.

Example of sound walls in the vicinity of East 75th.......

 

 

Simplistic

 

Cities are inherently crowded places. Trying to uncrowd them while keeping them functional has been the never-ending, unreachable and counter-productive goal of those who don't like crowds for hundreds of years. My suggestion:  if you don't like crowds, stay away from cities and leave them to those of us who enjoy the energy, innovation, economic vibrancy and entertainment that comes from urban crowds.

 

There’s abundant evidence that Americans in general dislike crowds unless there’s a reason for them.  The stronger the reason, the higher the tolerance for crowding.  So yes, there’s been an effort to maintain the valuable and extraordinary things about cities, while minimizing the need for crowding.

 

We’re also a very innovative people, so don’t be so sure it’s undoable.

 

Example of sound walls in the vicinity of East 75th.......

 

Why?

 

Is there a school or something similar in the vicinity?

Example of sound walls in the vicinity of East 75th.......

 

 

 

Very very early in the process to worry about any sound walls.  Typically, these are the first thing eliminated when the project comes in over budget

For those who are in favor of this, please please tell me what CITY STREET has "noise walls".  As I've said before, this is a FREEWAY!

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

 

Haven't we been told that industry will pop-up along this corridor? So who exactly are the walls meant to insulate from.

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

 

Haven't we been told that industry will pop-up along this corridor? So who exactly are the walls meant to insulate from.

 

NO we haven't.  There is no plan for industry, housing, ancillary streets/street-scape.

If there are going to be noise walls, I'm going to start picketing this f@cking thing.

Example of sound walls in the vicinity of East 75th.......

 

 

 

Very very early in the process to worry about any sound walls.  Typically, these are the first thing eliminated when the project comes in over budget

 

I didn't put them into the plans. They're already in there. If they don't make sense, remove them now.

As if the graffiti taggers ran out of spaces to tag along the way... yeah let's just put up "sound walls" which are brand-new blank canvases along the corridor!  Brilliant!!

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.

Example of sound walls in the vicinity of East 75th.......

 

 

 

Very very early in the process to worry about any sound walls.  Typically, these are the first thing eliminated when the project comes in over budget

 

I didn't put them into the plans. They're already in there. If they don't make sense, remove them now.

 

Here, let me find my wand, so I can wave it and make it so...

 

Seriously, haven't you seen enough of these plans to realize how much they change by the time the work is built?  Take the new Innerbelt bridges, the West Shoreway plan, etc

There’s abundant evidence that Americans in general dislike crowds unless there’s a reason for them.  The stronger the reason, the higher the tolerance for crowding.  So yes, there’s been an effort to maintain the valuable and extraordinary things about cities, while minimizing the need for crowding.

 

 

Your comment is simplistic and not adequately defined... Do we hate crowds at supermarkets?  Traffic jams?  Of course.  Do we hate 20 people living in an apartment meant for a family of 4?  Absolutely.  But CROWDS don't equal DENSITY, the latter which many, many Americans absolutely prefer.  Why do New York City and Chicago exist?  Why are these cities popular both as places to live and destinations for business meetings/conventions as well as vacationers? ... Why are cities, esp. sprawling sunbelt cities like Atlanta and Dallas and Charlotte and Houston, etc., building mass transit systems and developing TOD and full-service, walkable neighborhoods to as best they can to EMULATE New York and Chicago?...

 

Why here in Cleveland are we developing TOD neighborhoods close to transit to do the same? -- did you read the CJN article quoting Ari Maron who says MRN, deliberately, has focused all their development in areas accessible to Red Line stations?  Again, E Roc, "crowds" do NOT equal  density.

Seriously, haven't you seen enough of these plans to realize how much they change by the time the work is built?  Take the new Innerbelt bridges, the West Shoreway plan, etc

 

Yes. And I also know that if there is something in a plan that enough people do not want, the people force its removal from the plan BEFORE contracts are let. A responsible and engaged advocate doesn't wait for a project to go over budget or some other "hope" to occur for an undesirable design element to be removed from the plan. That's like saying we'll fix the car's brakes after we pull out of the parking lot.

Seriously, haven't you seen enough of these plans to realize how much they change by the time the work is built?  Take the new Innerbelt bridges, the West Shoreway plan, etc

 

Yes. And I also know that if there is something in a plan that enough people do not want, the people force its removal from the plan BEFORE contracts are let. A responsible and engaged advocate doesn't wait for a project to go over budget or some other "hope" to occur for an undesirable design element to be removed from the plan. That's like saying we'll fix the car's brakes after we pull out of the parking lot.

 

Plus having the soundwalls, which are typically to buffer sound from high speed / high traffic freeways, speaks volumes as to the planners' intent for this road.

Seriously, haven't you seen enough of these plans to realize how much they change by the time the work is built?  Take the new Innerbelt bridges, the West Shoreway plan, etc

 

Yes. And I also know that if there is something in a plan that enough people do not want, the people force its removal from the plan BEFORE contracts are let. A responsible and engaged advocate doesn't wait for a project to go over budget or some other "hope" to occur for an undesirable design element to be removed from the plan. That's like saying we'll fix the car's brakes after we pull out of the parking lot.

 

Plus having the soundwalls, which are typically to buffer sound from high speed / high traffic freeways, speaks volumes as to the planners' intent for this road.

 

Yes, and these soundwalls amount to walling off "those" people in the very neighborhoods the OC is to pass through suburbanites whiz thru in their SUV's. These walls will only further divide the neighborhood, making it even harder to walk or bike and this is in an area where residents mostly do not drive. Also, if the neighborhood is walled off, how will it benefit? This is transportation apartheid and should not be allowed to stand.

Example of sound walls in the vicinity of East 75th.......

 

 

Am I the only one that thinks cutting off the grid at the few cross streets like E 73rd is just as concerning as the walls on this map? I can understand not putting lights at every intersection, but cutting off the grid and the ability to access the boulevard from the neighborhood it cuts through and is supposed to be helping is a bad idea IMO. I do understand that 73rd isn't busy at all, but what's wrong with allowing the people on it to turn right onto the main road without having to go around the block?

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.

 

 

 

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.