Jump to content

inlovewithCLE

Kettering Tower 408'
  • Content Count

    765
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

79 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There would be an uproar if SW left Cleveland. The city should (and will) do everything it can to keep them here but it’s hard to believe they would make such a backwards decision. I hope this is just them doing their due diligence
  2. Ok now I think you’re pranking the forum, because you cannot POSSIBLY believe that the existence of Burke is why we don’t have Eaton or American Greetings. Lmao. I refuse to believe that that you actually think that’s true. There’s no way on God’s green earth you actually believe that. You gotta be pranking us. (And btw, it would have never been built on Burke land BECAUSE ITS A FREAKIN LANDFILL. )
  3. You do realize they can just vote with their feet and leave right? Taking tax dollars with them. WE (assuming you mean the city) don’t have any money. The money that city government (any government really) has comes from taxpayers. So it’s a simple equation: more taxpayers, more tax dollars. Less taxpayers, less tax dollars. Not rocket science, but I digress because I’m not going down another rabbit hole with you
  4. I love it. I think it’s an excellent use of the land and a great way to bring people over there
  5. If you really believe this....then I don’t know what to say.
  6. You must’ve missed where I said my idea would be to annex that land to the city. See this is what I’m saying. You don’t listen to anyone’s points, you just sit here and debate with yourself. You either didn’t actually read or actually comprehend what I said and instead decided to go down your own rabbit hole. This isn’t fun anymore lol.
  7. Damn near everything you say about Burke ranges from either factually inaccurate to downright loony. This is Burke Derangement Syndrome.
  8. And by the way, I care about getting the tax dollars of the people who live in those houses. What a silly argument, especially when (I repeat) the land THATS already available on the lakefront isn’t developed. Instead of using what you have, we’re having a stupid argument about shutting an airport down (which will cause us all kinds of issues) for MORE land. If you haven’t done a damn thing with what you got, what makes you think shutting down Burke will be some panacea? The same economic realities exist whether Burke is open or closed. The same difficulties that developers have in getting projects approved and funded exist whether Burke is open or closed. None of that changes. If that wasn’t a problem, the parts of the lakefront that are available NOW would have been developed already. Don’t tell me that all of a sudden if Burke is closed today that tomorrow we’ll have a bunch of towers on the land. The same economic realities still exist, which mean that those big towers will still be just as difficult to finance as they are now, which means that it’s EASIER to get financing for developments at the size that they would currently have to be because of the issues with Burke’s flight patterns. So why are we talking about closing it again? Not to mention it’s built on a damn landfill which means it’s most likely going to have to be parkland anyway. So we got rid of Burke for a park isolated by the highway and it still won’t have much of an impact on what kind of developments that can get financed there because the issue is the damn market, not the airport. You’re acting like “oh we could have amazing developments on the lakefront if that airport wasn’t in the way” when the reality is if it was easy to get new development of any kind financed the land that’s already available would have already have been built on and there would be demand for tearing down Burke based on real economic activity, not just people saying “you know what I think?! We should tear down that airport!” That’s an easy and lazy argument. The lack of development on the lakefront is not because Burke is there. The lack of development on the lakefront is because it’s difficult to get new construction built in Cleveland period, the lakefront property is owned either by the city or by the state (which means they have to approve whatever you do anyway) and because we change our lakefront strategy with every administration. That’s why. Not Burke. My whole point was that you could actually do things to enhance Burke AND still develop the lakefront at the same time because they aren’t mutually exclusive. Close Burke and you’re probably not getting the buildings you want on the property anyway so make Burke work and build on what you have
  9. USE THE LAND THATS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW ON THE LAKEFRONT
  10. 1. The private sector would be building the new subdivision, not the city. Home builders would fall over themselves to do it. 2. It wouldn’t be just a shutting down of the county airport. It would be a merger of the county airport with Burke AT Burke. Technical difference but a big one. And like I mentioned earlier, the city and county had very very preliminary discussions about exploring the possibility of doing just that a few years ago so it’s not something im pulling out of my arse.
  11. That’s silly. Burke being there doesn’t prevent economic viability and it not being there wouldn’t help economic viability. There’s other factors involved. As someone else mentioned earlier, even without Burke, developments on the land wouldn’t be that tall anyway most likely because of economic reasons. So you’re gonna tear up Burke for maybe, what, an extra 3 stories on buildings? Good job. And on top of that, without building on what you have now you have no proof of demand in THIS city (not in Boston or anywhere else, but here). Build on what you have first if you want anyone in power to even consider entertaining this silly argument
×
×
  • Create New...