Cleveland Development Discussions (Lorain, Euclid: how to, reasons, video)

[j_ws]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

How does density make everything better exactly?

A lot of slums and ghettos worldwide are pretty dense.

The urban core functions better when more neighborhoods are achieving the critical masses that ensure they're sustainable.

It's cheaper to provide services to people in denser areas. It's more efficient and you can provide better quality services at less cost than it would be to provide them to less people in a larger area. You just need to make sure you achieve certain densities.

Also I think it's kind of pointless and not very constructive to compare the conditions of a slum to an urban neighborhood and pretend that they exist in comparable contexts just because density is a shared factor.

Cleveland isn't a particularly dense city to begin with as it has so many wood-framed houses. Aiming to fill these neighborhoods back up to capacity while advocating that apartments and other denser units be built along primary corridors and near transit centers isn't a particularly crazy concept.

Originally Posted by Kamms

Trust me, I want to see the Cudell area full of working millennials or people with jobs generally. I look forward to using the Red Line trains full of nicely dressed professionals on their way to work downtown or other areas along the train route.


I lived in the Cudell area. The main reason: access to the Red Line for work and school downtown. It was going 'hood then so I, like many others, moved out. Guess where I moved then? Ohio City. Way before this current, hip trend.


Glad to see some potential development on the Midland Steel site; the W 117th Street station is actually closer to this site than W 98th Street/Detroit. Regardless, of the 300 potential workers at this location, how many are going to use the Rapid to commute there? When the area has 30,000 jobs in the pipeline, then you will see transit use spin-off.

Obviously they won't all use the Rapid, but it's important to locate new jobs within access of transit to establish that kind of accessibility for people. It's a gradual shift, but it's necessary to start somewhere. My biggest hope for the Midland site is that it has a catalytic effect for the Berea industrial corridor and could help induce further job growth. If this trend can be induced and accompanied by Cudell/West Boulevard TOD (which the study recommended should include decent amount of commercial space) it would be an overall plus for the neighborhood.

I don't think it's necessarily realistic to expect a net population gain for the city, but it's important to strengthen the inner-ring neighborhoods when possible.

Originally Posted by Kamms

Are you limiting your reference to transit being limited to downtown/Ohio City for the Rapid? Otherwise, bus access is good, with connections to the Rapid throughout the area.


The issue remains: job growth. Daily commuters using all forms of public transit, complemented with the occasional users going to sporting events, WSM, UC etc.


Hopefully Cleveland can get TOD right going forward. After all, Cleveland first true TOD development was a disaster: Tower City Center. The only downtown train station, with 3 train lines serving TCC, and it went from Gucci to Hoochie.

I always consider bus access to be a vital component of TOD. Trains are great, but a robust bus network is ultimately the backbone of a reliable transit system.

Cudell has great access for most forms of transit (train, bus, car, bike) and it's a big reason I've been so please with living there. Some of the bus cuts did strike a blow to some elderly residents, so there have been some painful adjustments, particularly east of W98.

The proximity to other in-demand areas is also an important component, as spillover from Detroit-Shoreway is inevitable and already happening between West Boulevard and W98. Developers are going to wander over into the neighborhood eventually, so I think they should be required to build in a manner that would facilitate a much more appealing neighborhood in the long run. Instead of demolition and infill condos, concentrate the new construction along the corridors where things are looking sad and bleak.

[baskervilles09]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

How does density make everything better exactly?

A lot of slums and ghettos worldwide are pretty dense.

...... I never said it "make[s] everything better exactly"

What I said was that the metro would be better off being more dense because of these CBD/neighboring developments even if we're still stuck with low population and job growth (thereby acknowledging that not everything would be better exactly) and that TOD would help maximize those benefits. I have a deadline on Friday so I don't have time to give a lecture on urban planning and the benefits of increasing urban density but I'll be happy to respond over the weekend.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by j_ws

The urban core functions better when more neighborhoods are achieving the critical masses that ensure they're sustainable.

It's cheaper to provide services to people in denser areas. It's more efficient and you can provide better quality services at less cost than it would be to provide them to less people in a larger area. You just need to make sure you achieve certain densities.

Also I think it's kind of pointless and not very constructive to compare the conditions of a slum to an urban neighborhood and pretend that they exist in comparable contexts just because density is a shared factor.

Cleveland isn't a particularly dense city to begin with as it has so many wood-framed houses. Aiming to fill these neighborhoods back up to capacity while advocating that apartments and other denser units be built along primary corridors and near transit centers isn't a particularly crazy concept.

The poster said essentially density is the key. I'm just saying clearly it's not.

Lots of cities are less dense now than in the past. Boston for example isn't even close to it's peak density, still doing much much better than in 1970.

Again it seems like density is being given a pride of place it doesn't deserve. Just assertions. I get it from an aesthetic angle too, but I just don't see it as being a cause of anything but rather an effect of other causes.

[baskervilles09]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

The poster said essentially density is the key. I'm just saying clearly it's not.

Lots of cities are less dense now than in the past. Boston for example isn't even close to it's peak density, still doing much much better than in 1970.

Again it seems like density is being given a pride of place it doesn't deserve. Just assertions. I get it from an aesthetic angle too, but I just don't see it as being a cause of anything but rather an effect of other causes.

No, clearly that's not what I said if you actually bothered to read. What I said was that these developments in our urban core are not shell games because increasing the density of that urban core and bringing people back to it/retaining people there makes the metro better off. I did not say that it is the key or that it was suddenly going to make us have explosive population and job growth.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

How does density make everything better exactly?

Well, from my own vantage point -- a person who does not want to live an automobile-oriented lifestyle -- density makes possible very walkable areas where nearly everything you want is nearby, as well as cost-effective mass transit that actually runs frequently. I enjoyed those conditions in my North Side Chicago neighborhood; but here in Cleveland only to a much lesser extent.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by baskervilles09

Moving people between the different suburbs and exurbs is a shell game. Building new developments in higher density neighborhoods of the metro that move people from the suburbs and exurbs or entice people to remain in more urban parts of the metro is not a shell game. The more dense the metro becomes the better off we are even if we are forced to suffer another decade or two of slow population/job growth. TOD is a way to help maximize the benefits of that higher density.

It's all premised and jobs and their location. The reality in the U.S., of course Cleveland included, is the continued rise/growth of suburbs and exurbs.

[JohnDBaumgardner]

http://fox8.com/2017/07/22/property-...cleus-project/


More NEWS on nuCLEus ...

CLEVELAND -- The developers behind Cleveland's first major skyscraper in decades are proposing a complex property tax deal to move NuCLEus forward.

Stark Enterprises said the arrangement would clear the way for construction of the 54-story tower and mixed-use project that would include restaurants, retail, apartments, offices, a hotel and more than 2,000 parking spaces.

Under the proposal, the Cleveland Metropolitan School District would receive a lump sum payment of property taxes up front, which would assist the developer in its financing.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by baskervilles09

No, clearly that's not what I said if you actually bothered to read. What I said was that these developments in our urban core are not shell games because increasing the density of that urban core and bringing people back to it/retaining people there makes the metro better off. I did not say that it is the key or that it was suddenly going to make us have explosive population and job growth.

Ok.

Your point is not well made though.

[baskervilles09]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Ok.

Your point is not well made though.

As I said I don't have time for a lengthy reply right now (besides commenting on the straw man argument or reading comprehension issues) but I'll make sure to get back to you either in this thread this weekend or in a message if the thread has moved on too much to explain the many reasons why yes it really was.

[1watertiger]

https://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/ind...0;attach=21370
Picture of new apartment in University Circle